Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Shar_the_Black 02-15-06, 11:13 PM	How do you guys treat rolling a one in combat? Does the player hurt himself somehow, break his weapon, or just horribly miss? I can't recall a rule that's set in stone for this, and I was wondering how you guys handle it.
guevaramartyr 02-15-06, 11:16 PM	NOOOO! Don't start this thread again, it's like "Are Undead Evil?" only it sets roleplayers against rules-lawyers and generally causes a mess. Reference previous incarnations on the boards instead, for the love of all that is holy.
Ghenesh 02-16-06, 07:06 AM	For the guy above, if the original poster wasn't here when all the "what's your take on rolling a 1" posts were discussed or wanna know the point of view of the active members now it's quite valid to post it now, for the nature of this forum and the game it's inevitable to see repeated posts, so maybe you should be more constructive about it. As for our take, our group have being playing AD&D, then 3.0 and now 3.5... we have had diferent effects on rolling a 1, first we consider it a terrible mistake and then we throw a terrible d% with ... i don't remember well, i think it was like 10% damage char, 20% damage weapon, 30% drop weapon, 40% fall prone (you obviously end your turn on this). Then we went for another approach, the same d% but now you couldn't hurt yourself: 10% damage weapon, 20% drop weapon, 30% fall prone, 40% nothing! (yay)... we still consider it was too much... our first DM like this kind of stuff and we got used to it. Well, that DM left role playing long ago (3 years ago) it was when we started playing 3.0 and shortly after 3.5, and we change the rule to just: rolling a natural 1 in an attack roll ends your turn (and you obviously miss the attack). I'll DM next time (we have been switching DMing the whole time) and i'll make a natural 1 in an attack roll as just a miss... no extra penalty.
lostone 02-16-06, 08:40 AM	In our games we do several different things depending on the tone of the game and the level. For epic games we use a rule I saw suggested somewhere a long time ago (maybe an optional rule in the ELH?). Natural 1 causes you to reroll the attack roll and have a -20 penalty. Natural 20 causes a reroll with a +20 bonus. For humorous and/or lighthearted games the DM usually makes something funny happen like the rogue drops the dagger into his foot for the tenth time (that player tends to roll poorly, bad karma or something). For other games a natural one usually results in a bow string breaking, or weapon getting dropped/thrown. The current game we're running in we're trying something new. If you roll a natural 1 than everyone that can reach you gets a free attack of opportunity against you. So far it's been working well and is motivating players to work harder not to get ganged up on.
Shar_the_Black 02-16-06, 08:51 AM	Alright, thanks for the ideas. "rolling a natural 1 in an attack roll ends your turn (and you obviously miss the attack)" is the way my friends and I treat it, it's just that we got a new player that thinks something else should happen. And to guevaramartyr, I recently joined up, so excuse me if I didn't see this posted a while ago. And besides, I was only asking for player opinions on this subject, not critisism :(
Centauri 02-16-06, 09:39 AM	If you rule that a natural 1 is worse than just a miss, you penalize players who make a lot of attack rolls (i.e. high level fighters) and have little or no effect on characters who rely on spells. Isn't that imbalance bad enough already?
Oneiros 02-16-06, 11:22 AM	I have a fumble house rule - if a character rolls a natural "1" on an attack roll, this indicates a fumble "threat". The character then needs to confirm the fumble by making an attack roll against a DC 15 at the same bonuses as the original roll. A miss means the character has suffered some mishap. Then a d20 is rolled to look up the results on a fumble table. Characters with multiple attacks only check for fumbles on the first attack in a sequence. (As Centauri points out, applying it to all attack rolls is one of the flaws of a fumble system.)
Gold Katana 02-16-06, 01:47 PM	1 is an auto-miss, with another roll required. If that roll is also "low" (usually 4 or less) I, the DM, make something BAD happen - i.e. drop your weapon, shoot the sorceror, cut yourself, etc. Often results in an amusing or tension-heightening effect. Sometimes there are cascading effects, requiring saves or checks of some type. We've always used this method (20+ years) and don't much care about the "I attack more, so I can miss more" whining. It is my cue to direct the action into results not predicted or reflected in the written rules, which if strictly followed inevitably lead to as much drama as a game of monopoly.
Rumple_Cragstan 02-16-06, 05:14 PM	My rule is that it simply provokes an AoO, because the character's attack was parried by the enemy (or something of the sort) and was forced into a situation where they left themselves open. If there are extrenuating circumstances (such as a BAB +0 character using a weapon they're not profficient with) then some worse things can happen. I also allow a feat for my game to negate that AoO when you roll nat. 1 for attacks, and it just becomes a miss.
Kobayashi_Maru 02-16-06, 05:46 PM	We have a Critical Miss and a Critical Hit chart using percentile dice. Each type of weapon is seperate Artillery, Bludgeoning, Energy, Grappleing, Piercing, Slashing, and Splashing. As far as the critical miss chart you would have to roll 91%+ to have any ill effects, like bending or breaking your weapon.
Shinryouga 02-17-06, 05:31 PM	We avoid the "skilled fighter suffers more than inept mage" problem by making a 1 "threaten a botch". Here's how it goes. Natural 1 rolled. Roll a second d20 to "confirm" the botch. Subtract result of d20 roll from that roll's bonus (+15 attack bonus, rolled 16, equals -1) If the result is a negative number (0 is considered NOT negative) then you have "botched" and the DM determines something bad happens. Default is an attack of opportunity from all surrounding enemies that could make one. Dropped weapons, broken bowstrings, etc. This does technically mean that high level fighters can still technically hit low level opponents on a natural 1. But the whole lvl 20 fighter misses CR 1/3 goblin 5% of the time always bugged me anyway. :D Just my two coppers.
Surgo 02-17-06, 07:59 PM	What's your take on rolling a 1? They just rolled a 1. Nothing more, nothing less.
LCD2YOU 02-17-06, 08:23 PM	My game? They stop their attacks for that round. After that, the lower level they are, the more possibility that they will mess up something else but requires a few more dice rolls. However I generally don't bother with that. It's a 1.
BeyondFated 02-17-06, 09:34 PM	In combat? Provoke a AoO from the creature you attacked. Everything else? A 1 equals a -10. Working out pretty well so far. Doesn't hurt the fighters too bad because I can barely hit them anyway.
Morwen 02-18-06, 06:38 PM	They just rolled a 1. Nothing more, nothing less. Exactly. The fact that rolling a 1 is an automatic miss is enough, in my opinion. You don't need to penalize the fighter any more than that.
ashcat_lt 02-18-06, 07:31 PM	If you roll a 1 on an attack, roll a Ref save vs AC. Success = automatic miss (period) continue turn normally, failure but no 1 = lose the rest of your turn, 1 = roll again. Failure = flatfooted till next turn, 1 = roll again. Failure = fall prone, 1 = roll again. Failure = lose next turn, 1 = roll again. Failure = flatfooted through next turn, 1 = roll again... these are all cumulative, and the last two repeat until you stop rolling ones. If you roll a 1 on an attack roll followed by 4 x 1s on saves you will automatically miss, fall prone, lose the rest of your turn and your next turn, be flatfooted for that duration.
scottishswash91 02-18-06, 10:02 PM	KILL THE RULES LAWYERS!!!!!!!!! NOOOO! Don't start this thread again, it's like "Are Undead Evil?" only it sets roleplayers against rules-lawyers and generally causes a mess. Reference previous incarnations on the boards instead, for the love of all that is holy. Roll a 1 and you're done.(Boy what a poet, I should be a bard.) End of story. Always has been always will be; kinda like death and taxes.
Xeviat-DM 02-19-06, 03:49 PM	My rule is that it simply provokes an AoO, because the character's attack was parried by the enemy (or something of the sort) and was forced into a situation where they left themselves open. If there are extrenuating circumstances (such as a BAB +0 character using a weapon they're not profficient with) then some worse things can happen. I also allow a feat for my game to negate that AoO when you roll nat. 1 for attacks, and it just becomes a miss. This is what I do; if you roll a 1, that roll is an automatic miss and threatens a critical miss; roll again. If the second roll misses the target's AC, you provoke an attack of opportunity from the defender of your critical miss. Because you cannot take more than one attack of opportunity on the same profocation, you have no worries of recieving multiple AoOs from the same opponent for multiple critical misses. Tangent Alert: I've run the statistics for critical hits and misses, and with the current system of having to check your critical hits, one tends to deal less damage in the current system than one would if critical misses and critical hits were removed entirely. This is because there is a good chance that your critical threat won't confirm. Thus, to correct this imbalance, I have added an "exploding critical" rule in my games: if you roll a critical threat, and the roll beats the target's AC, roll again. If that roll misses, you've scored a regular hit; if that roll hits, you've scored a critical hit and deal additional damage based on your weapon; if that roll is also a critical threat, you continue to roll threat checks (for every time you threat on a threat check, you increase the critical multiplier for this attack by 1). This small change rarely comes up in game, but it corrects a hicough in the damage averages.
Melpomene 02-19-06, 11:52 PM	The one thing I have started doing... If a player rolls a natural one on itiniative, I tip over thier figure (including the enemies), to indicate they'v fallen over or something.
BarbeChenue 02-20-06, 12:42 AM	I'm in the same camp as those who detest all the "crit and fumble tables" as well as all the "heightened fumble effects". I'll go with what the above posters said: no need to nerf fighters *again*, that's just ridiculous. I'll admit, however, that it can be fun in some chosen circumstances.
Gleddon 02-20-06, 01:28 AM	The ruling I use when I DM is that a natural 1 in combat always misses, and the player follows up with a DC 15 reflex save or drops his/her weapon. I think I used to have it end their turn as well, but I've let that part slide. The DM that I play under rules it as an always miss that provokes attacks of oppertunity, and I think that it also ends your turn (I don't remember for sure because we play infrequently).
Addimarchus 02-20-06, 05:09 AM	the rule i generally use is quite simple,i roll a D100+D10 (to get use of the damned thing), and anything below 50% is a "missfire/sword stuck in wall-or-dirt-or-etc" or "drop weapon," 51% or more if it is ranged, you hit a fellow PC or an innocent bystander/NPC, if it is a melee weapon, i generally ask who is near them, if there is a fellow PC, it automatically hits that PC, or whoever is closest (or further depending on sword vs. pole arm), but if it involves something like disable device, use magic item, or any other skill that involves an inanimate object they either break it, use it wrong (an image of Lidda is coming into mind, pg 85 PHB) and suffer feedback, or set it off if a trap. this is my rule, if you don't agree with it, then don't flame, it is a matter of personal opinion, not Direct Rules.
Tyler Do'Urden 02-20-06, 10:25 AM	A 1 on attack automatically misses, and a 1 on a save automatically fails. This really is punishment enough, especially in situations where 1+your bonus would have exceeded the target number.
jnrhayz 02-20-06, 11:00 AM	In my group, the DM has implemented a system which works well for us... If a PLAYER rolls a 1, you roll to confirm. If you miss the opponents AC, then you have botched. This seems to only happen at dramatically appropriate times and so has been quite fun for us. If a PLAYER rolls a 20, it is an automatic critical hit. We do not confirm critical hits for players. The DM has critical hit and miss charts. If a NPC rolls a 1, it is an auto critical miss. If a NPC rolls a 20, it must be confirmed. The NPC must roll again and hit the PLAYERS AC. Like I said, it works well for our group and we enjoy it. When others DM, we still use this system.
Ra-Tiel 02-21-06, 06:42 AM	Hi. === Sorry, but seeing all those "critical fumble" rules... GAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!! :gah: :OMG! --- So, now this is done, next question: WHY?????? :confused: Why is in your games a high-level fighter more likely to drop his weapon than a level 1 rogue? Why in all the layers of the Abyss do you just crave for such a :censored: rule? --- I mean... many people are good at their jobs, and that becaues they trained or studied for years! Think about it.. is a long-time programmer likely to accidentally program a virus that will destroy his company's mainfraim with 5% of all code he writes? Or a long-time surgeon accidentally killing somebody while performing an eye surgery in 5% of all surgeries he makes? Or a senior police-officer shooting himself in the foot in 5% of all firearms exercises? Probably not! :nonono: --- And for those who like more reading about that, take a look at this. === Greetings, _Ra-Tiel.
jnrhayz 02-21-06, 10:11 AM	Well, if you don't like critical hit or miss tables. Do not use them. My group enjoys them and use it as flavor for our enjoyment of the game. I will never forget when my Barbarian attacked a two headed dragon and killed one of it's heads with one stroke (level 16 Barbarian) or when (most recently) the party barbarian got his arm cut off in combat (critical hit by enemy) and my lowly rogue rushed into combat and got him a potion and sent him back to the city walls (as I flung my short sword 10ft behind me - natural 1) as I drew my dagger and gave him time to escape, then ran away (picking up my sword on the way). It was a defining moment for my usually stay out of battle rogue. It was a defining moment that would never have happened without the critical hit chart which cut off the Barbarian's arm (which was regenerated a few days later by a friendly cleric). If you disagree, don't use them. If you like this kind of flavor (and can handle getting your character possibly killed - I had one character get a ruptured spleen), then go for it. One thing I would caution, everyone in the group should agree to having or not having critical hit and/or miss charts. Playing D&D is about everyone having fun and some people just don't like that kind of flavor to their game.
Oneiros 02-21-06, 10:13 AM	So, now this is done, next question: WHY?????? Why is in your games a high-level fighter more likely to drop his weapon than a level 1 rogue? Why in all the layers of the Abyss do you just crave for such a rule?Ummm... you're input is appreciated, Ra-Tiel, but did you actually read all the posts here and in the other thread? There are plenty of "critical confirmation" methods listed (mine included) which mitigate the flat 5% chance across all levels which seems to be the main complaint you have. Also, the bulk of the "Critical Myths" essay you linked to deals mostly with rules for "fumbles" on skill checks, which doesn't seem to be the focus of these threads. The "automatic fumble" on a natural 1 I completely agree with you on. I also have the same issues with Reflex Saves or Dex Checks as confirmation methods, for the same reasons as the "Critical Myths" thread. However, those aren't the only options. IMHO, fumbles should relate to combat skill, and a character's attack roll is the best measure of that skill. A confirmation roll also has a nice symmetry with critical hits. However, I also don't believe the AC of the opponent should influence a fumble either, which is why I make the fumble confirmation roll against a flat DC 15. (This means a high level character usually can't fumble, unless they're taking some penalties on their attack, like power attacking or combat expertise.) As to why... people like the added tension and "realism" a fumble introduces to the game. My own results table includes damage to armor, weapons or shields, which otherwise never really comes into play. (I've never had anyone use Sunder during combat.)
Ra-Tiel 02-21-06, 12:38 PM	Hi. === @Oneiros: Ummm... you're input is appreciated, Ra-Tiel, but did you actually read all the posts here and in the other thread? There are plenty of "critical confirmation" methods listed (mine included) which mitigate the flat 5% chance across all levels which seems to be the main complaint you have. I indeed have read every post before mine, and I must say that even with some kind of "confirmation roll", I still find the idea laughable. --- Also, the bulk of the "Critical Myths" essay you linked to deals mostly with rules for "fumbles" on skill checks, which doesn't seem to be the focus of these threads. But it can easily and equally be adopted for critical misses/fumbles in combat. And that seems to be the focus of this and the other thread. --- The "automatic fumble" on a natural 1 I completely agree with you on. I also have the same issues with Reflex Saves or Dex Checks as confirmation methods, for the same reasons as the "Critical Myths" thread. However, those aren't the only options. I must say that I find any house rule regarding fumbles unneeded and unwanted. The automatic miss on a natural 1 is already punishment enough for characters, especially for the +3 keen wounding greataxe +27 melee (1d12+19 plus wounding, 19-20/x3)-barbarian missing that AC 9 goblin... Also, think about how many abilities rely on a sucessful attack roll (mostly smite evil and various spells), anything beyond the automatic miss is too much a disadvantage. Player: "So wait... not only did I miss with my only disintegrate I had prepared for this day, but I even hit myself with it?" :uh-huh: DM: "Yes!" :D Player: :twitch: --- IMHO, fumbles should relate to combat skill, and a character's attack roll is the best measure of that skill. A confirmation roll also has a nice symmetry with critical hits. However, I also don't believe the AC of the opponent should influence a fumble either, which is why I make the fumble confirmation roll against a flat DC 15. (This means a high level character usually can't fumble, unless they're taking some penalties on their attack, like power attacking or combat expertise.) At most I can see including the various suggestions from the DMG and ELHb: natural 1 = "-10" natural 20 = "30" or natural 1 = "roll again and substract 20 from the result (repeat as needed as long nat 1s come up) natural 20 = "roll again and add 20 to the result (repeat as needed as long nat 20s come up) --- As to why... people like the added tension and "realism" a fumble introduces to the game. My own results table includes damage to armor, weapons or shields, which otherwise never really comes into play. (I've never had anyone use Sunder during combat.) So, speaking about realism and tension... I always thought that playing DnD was about being the hero (or villain), the larger than life being, saving (or destroying) kingdoms, princesses and innocents. Would LotR have been a better movie if... ...Legolas had accidentally shot Frodo in the abdomen? ...Gimli had accidentally broken his axe? ...Boromir had accidentally hit Gandalf in the chest? ...Eowyn had not only been wounded in the final battle before the gates of Minas Tirith, but had been dismembered instead? ...Faramir had accidentally thrown away his sword? I don't think so, sorry. :noway: In my opinion such tables and rules make a parody out of DnD and absolutely don't suit the "heroic" feeling the PCs should be kept in. Even the most "brutal" settings (DarkSun and Ravenloft) do - AFAIK - not possess such a thing. And that should tell something. === @jnrhayz: Well, if you don't like critical hit or miss tables. Do not use them. My group enjoys them and use it as flavor for our enjoyment of the game. If you enjoy them, good for you. But before I willingly accept such a thing in a game I participate in Hell freezes over. --- I will never forget when my Barbarian attacked a two headed dragon and killed one of it's heads with one stroke (level 16 Barbarian) or when (most recently) the party barbarian got his arm cut off in combat (critical hit by enemy) and my lowly rogue rushed into combat and got him a potion and sent him back to the city walls (as I flung my short sword 10ft behind me - natural 1) as I drew my dagger and gave him time to escape, then ran away (picking up my sword on the way). It was a defining moment for my usually stay out of battle rogue. It was a defining moment that would never have happened without the critical hit chart which cut off the Barbarian's arm (which was regenerated a few days later by a friendly cleric). Sorry, but I usually prefer my characters not getting mutilated, thanks. Also, would you still think so favorable of that critical hit things if you were playing a sorcerer and a result akin to "cut vocal chords: cannot speak until receiving a heal or regenerate" came up, you had no cleric or druid in the party (or not high enough to cast said spells), several days/weeks away from the next town and pressed by time to explore that dungeon further to save the princess from getting sacrificed? Or when that nifty "beheaded" result comes up when a single lousy orc gets a surprise round and attacks your level 17 barbarian? :rolleyes: And could you please explain how your "stay out of battle" rogue survived an encounter with something that utterly diced your party barbarian? --- If you disagree, don't use them. If you like this kind of flavor (and can handle getting your character possibly killed - I had one character get a ruptured spleen), then go for it. I can handle my characters getting killed quite well, thank you: wounded human paladin falling save against energy burst, down to -13 wounded half-elf bard in the blast radius of a balor's death throes, down to -19 human soulknife failing save against a finger of death slightly wounded warforged fighter getting critted by the minotaur zombie in "Whispers of the vampire's blade" adventure, down to -17 What I cannot handle is having a character killed by some freaky house-rule that breaks the whole HP/damage system over the knee and screws around with class abilities. --- One thing I would caution, everyone in the group should agree to having or not having critical hit and/or miss charts. Playing D&D is about everyone having fun and some people just don't like that kind of flavor to their game. It's not a question of "flavor" in my opinion. You can have extremely lethal and dangerous combats without such rules in place. You want deadly combats? Drop each class's HD by 1 step (yes, that means d3 for sorcerer and wizard!). Or don't roll damage but have each hit deal 2/3 of the maximum damage. There are other means of achieving the goal of making combat more deadly/realistical than using "critical hit/fumble tables". You could try out the "Combat Defense" system from the Advanced Player's Guide from SSS, for example. But just throwing in those tables and calling it "flavorful" or something is in my opinion cheating on the players, because such a system has a much deeper impact into the mechanics as it might seem. === Greetings, _Ra-Tiel.
Hariman 02-21-06, 01:17 PM	Wow, looking at the furor and the reactions, I might rule that a natural one on an attack doesn't automatically miss. It's just a one and the attack is determined normally. (When I start to DM again, a year or three from now.) For the record, I play in two campaigns. In the second campaign, a 1 is a miss. Nothing more. I the first campaign, the DM instituted a house rule. When a natural one is rolled, roll a D4 to determine the effect. 1- Hit Self 2- Hit Friend 3- Break (Only come up once, and I'll ask about magical weapons soon.) 4- Drop (Same Square) Natural Weapons can't break or drop. These fumble rules are applies to NPCs as well as players. I think I'm going to bring up this critical fumble system with the DM soon. At the very least, I'm going to ask what break means for a magical weapon. I'm also going to recommend switching to a D10 and adding 5= Hit Enemy, 6/7/8/9/10= Nothing. Hariman PS: Certain oozes have AC 5. That means a high level fighter could attain the equivalent of greater success on an attack roll. And still Miss. Ones will not miss when I DM. It's just silly. If the attack rolls were done on a D100 system, it wouldn't be bad. But 5% is too much.
Oneiros 02-21-06, 01:47 PM	I indeed have read every post before mine, and I must say that even with some kind of "confirmation roll", I still find the idea laughable. I must say that I find any house rule regarding fumbles unneeded and unwanted.That's fine, and you're arguing a matter of taste. But several people obviously find it an interesting addition to play (including players, who know that the same thing can happen to NPCs.) The automatic miss on a natural 1 is already punishment enough for characters, especially for the +3 keen wounding greataxe +27 melee (1d12+19 plus wounding, 19-20/x3)-barbarian missing that AC 9 goblin...Well, under my own variant at least, that guy wouldn't fumble anyway, unless he somehow found it neccessary to take a -13 or more to power-attack that pesky goblin. So, speaking about realism and tension... I always thought that playing DnD was about being the hero (or villain), the larger than life being, saving (or destroying) kingdoms, princesses and innocents. Would LotR have been a better movie if... [... list of several potentially interesting combat developments... ] ... In my opinion such tables and rules make a parody out of DnD and absolutely don't suit the "heroic" feeling the PCs should be kept in.So, you've never seen a movie where any of these things happen to the hero? I can think of plenty, because part of being a hero is fighting on despite circumstances turning against you. One of my favorites is the duel in El Cid (with Charlton Heston), where the main character at one point is reduced to grabbing a horse saddle to use as a shield. During the fight, the HERO trips, loses his weapon, has his shield destroyed, all sorts of stuff... it was GREAT. That whole scene is probably the main catalyst for me to add such a system to my own game, way back in 1st edition. Conversely, do the "heroes" keep hacking at the villian who dropped his sword, or offer him a chance to surrender? In a typical game without fumbles they just keep hacking 'til he's dead. So, that "heroic" feel is just a matter of perspective. Even the most "brutal" settings (DarkSun and Ravenloft) do - AFAIK - not possess such a thing. And that should tell something.Tells me that they were focusing on developing the setting, and not on introducing a brand new, controversial combat mechanic into the DnD system. Not seeing the ommission as supporting your argument. It's not a question of "flavor" in my opinion. You can have extremely lethal and dangerous combats without such rules in place. You want deadly combats? Drop each class's HD by 1 step (yes, that means d3 for sorcerer and wizard!). Or don't roll damage but have each hit deal 2/3 of the maximum damage.These plus your other suggestions will indeed increase the lethalness of combat, but don't do anything to make combat more interesting, which is why I think many people want to add fumbles. It helps break up the back and forth rolling of swing weapon/roll damage that lacks a certain variety. So, for me, it is a question of flavor.
Ra-Tiel 02-21-06, 01:52 PM	Hi. === @Hariman: Wow, looking at the furor and the reactions, I might rule that a natural one on an attack doesn't automatically miss. It's just a one and the attack is determined normally. (When I start to DM again, a year or three from now.) I thought you misunderstood me. I said that "natural 1 = automatic miss" is ok, as that is the standard rule for it. What really gets me freaking out is when somebody comes up with a house rule that screws the nat1/nat20 system completely over. --- For the record, I play in two campaigns. In the second campaign, a 1 is a miss. Nothing more. Ok, so far nothing out of the ordinary. --- I the first campaign, the DM instituted a house rule. When a natural one is rolled, roll a D4 to determine the effect. 1- Hit Self 2- Hit Friend 3- Break (Only come up once, and I'll ask about magical weapons soon.) 4- Drop (Same Square) Natural Weapons can't break or drop. These fumble rules are applies to NPCs as well as players. But this made me really go: WTF?!? :uh-huh: You are serious about that, aren't you? Your DM does have some basic math skills, or? With that rule, a two-weapon fighting fighter or ranger with 4 attacks in the main hand and 3 attacks in the off hand has a 0,05(chance for nat1)*0,25(chance for specific result on the d4)*7(number of attacks)=8.75%chance per round to hit himself hit a friend sunder his own weapon disarm himself That's just crazy! :crazy: :nonono: --- I think I'm going to bring up this critical fumble system with the DM soon. At the very least, I'm going to ask what break means for a magical weapon. I'm also going to recommend switching to a D10 and adding 5= Hit Enemy, 6/7/8/9/10= Nothing. Hariman I would smack that guy with the DMG and have that stupid rule removed or if it must be by all means replaced with something reasonable. That's just absolute non-sense. This is mechanically and mathematically speaking so bad, I can't find any words for it! :rant: --- PS: Certain oozes have AC 5. That means a high level fighter could attain the equivalent of greater success on an attack roll. And still Miss. Ones will not miss when I DM. It's just silly. If the attack rolls were done on a D100 system, it wouldn't be bad. But 5% is too much. As said above, "natural 1 = automatic miss" is ok. Anything else is very questionable in my opinion. But whatever floats your boat... === Greetings, _Ra-Tiel.
jnrhayz 02-21-06, 01:54 PM	If you enjoy them, good for you. But before I willingly accept such a thing in a game I participate in Hell freezes over. To each his own. Without differences in opinion how could we have these lovely conversations on the Wizards message boards? Sorry, but I usually prefer my characters not getting mutilated, thanks. Also, would you still think so favorable of that critical hit things if you were playing a sorcerer and a result akin to "cut vocal chords: cannot speak until receiving a heal or regenerate" came up, you had no cleric or druid in the party (or not high enough to cast said spells), several days/weeks away from the next town and pressed by time to explore that dungeon further to save the princess from getting sacrificed? Or when that nifty "beheaded" result comes up when a single lousy orc gets a surprise round and attacks your level 17 barbarian? Well, mutilation sucks. Have you ever played a character that was blind, mute, or missing a limb? Let me tell you, that is some interesting and complex role-playing going on there. (Which is why everyone should agree in the first place, if your co-players aren't willing to deal with the complications these things could cause- DO NOT USE THEM.) As for instant kill, well, I have mixed emotions about that. On one side, a basic orc (in my game) would have to roll a 20 to hit the 17th Level Barbarian's AC, a 20 to confirm, and then 100 on percentile to instant kill the Barbarian. While this would suck greatly for the Barbarian or even my rogue, wierd stuff like that does happen and would probably be talked about as one of the great memories of our game for years to come. Which for me, is worth the loss of the 17th level Barbarian (or even my current rogue). What I cannot handle is having a character killed by some freaky house-rule that breaks the whole HP/damage system over the knee and screws around with class abilities. Well, that is your viewpoint, but like I said, we like this system and it doesn't "screw" with our game much. But just throwing in those tables and calling it "flavorful" or something is in my opinion cheating on the players, because such a system has a much deeper impact into the mechanics as it might seem. Yeah, we tried other things. Most recently the Wound Point / Vitality Point thing - I run the game when our primary DM wants to play and I try different systems out. It will probably see some action in our next long term campaign (I can't say for sure as I am not the DM for that campaign, but I think everyone liked that system). However as we are only 9th level, we have some time before that will happen (unless we all die, we plan on playing through 20th level). Obviously with the Wound Point / Vitality thing, the chart doesn't make sense as critical hits apply to wound points. We would probably keep the critical miss chart though, because like I said, we like it. Although I would not suggest that (critical miss chart with vitality point system) to other groups. Overall, my experience with critical hit and miss charts has been positive. It isn't for everyone, but I think people could at least have fun experimenting with them to determine whether they work for their group or not. And could you please explain how your "stay out of battle" rogue survived an encounter with something that utterly diced your party barbarian? Sure, my rogue is also a sorcerer, so I have a great dex, some magical armor protection, and I had cast shield. So I had a high AC. Also, I fought full defensive because I was just guarding his retreat. So I did that for about two rounds and then withdrew. I never tried to kill them, just not get killed and help my friend escape.
Ra-Tiel 02-21-06, 02:50 PM	Hi. === @Oneiros: That's fine, and you're arguing a matter of taste. But several people obviously find it an interesting addition to play (including players, who know that the same thing can happen to NPCs.) Well, under my own variant at least, that guy wouldn't fumble anyway, unless he somehow found it neccessary to take a -13 or more to power-attack that pesky goblin. Preferences of taste aside, I still think such a mechanic is unnecessary. Also, the penalties from Power Attack and Combat Expertise last for a full round and add up. Perhaps the barbarian was in melee with the BBEG and used a -8 Power Attack to increase his damage and a -5 Combat Expertise to boost his AC. And the goblin was just a henchman/lackey/thrall ordered or forced into melee and the barbarian Cleaved onto him during his full attack... and *dumdum* there you have your fumble. --- So, you've never seen a movie where any of these things happen to the hero? I can think of plenty, because part of being a hero is fighting on despite circumstances turning against you. One of my favorites is the duel in El Cid (with Charlton Heston), where the main character at one point is reduced to grabbing a horse saddle to use as a shield. During the fight, the HERO trips, he loses his weapon, he has his shield destroyed, all sorts of stuff... it was GREAT. That whole scene is probably the main catalyst for me to add such a system to my own game, way back in 1st edition. To be honest, I've never seen El Cid. But when I think "heroic fantasy" I do not envision a paladin fumbling around, dropping his holy avenger in the mud, or a mighty and learned wizard shooting his fireball into the sky instead of into the charging orc horde. --- Conversely, do the "heroes" keep hacking at the villian who dropped his sword, or offer him a chance to surrender? In a typical game without fumbles they just keep hacking 'til he's dead. So, that "heroic" feel is just a matter of perspective. The answer to the question if the characters offer mercy to an enemy should not depend on some fumbling rules, but on the characters. I'd have done so in many games that used the normal rules, because the character wanted to show mercy, even to a fully armed and still fighting opponent. A bard I played once even tried to save the egg of a black dragon, firmly believing that one's morals and world view are not set in stone and that she could have showed the black wyrmling the benefits of honest, loyalty and friendship. Also, you noticed that also villains can be heroic? Take a look at "John Preston" from Equilibrium. He was a merciless enforcer of his society's laws and killed dozens if not hundreds of emotion-criminals. But he was married, had family, and firmly believed that his deeds allowed humanity a better life. Only in the end he turned towards the resistance, and helped to overthrow the regime as he now realized that he stood on the wrong side of the fence, so to speak. Was he a villain? By definition (at least in the beginning) yes. Was he heroic? When you look at the stunts and firefights in the movie, I'd say absolutely yes! --- Tells me that they were focusing on developing the setting, and not on introducing a brand new, controversial combat mechanic into the DnD system. Not seeing the ommission as supporting your argument. Not necessarily. The SSS variant of Ravenloft has introduced a few new saves: Horror Save, Fear Save (can't recall the third new save, thou). This tells me that they also focused on making the mechanics of the system fit the flavor of the setting. --- These plus your other suggestions will indeed increase the lethalness of combat, but don't do anything to make combat more interesting, which is why I think many people want to add fumbles. It helps break up the back and forth rolling of swing weapon/roll damage that lacks a certain variety. So, for me, it is a question of flavor. And the proposed suggestions of the other posters (hitting yourself or a friend, breaking your weapon, dropping your weapon, stumbling over your own feet) will increase the absurdity of combat, but don't do anything to make combat more interesting. :P And if the combat boils down to a "I roll to hit... I roll damage... I roll to hit... I roll damage...", then the group has other problems. There are more than enough ways to make combat in DnD interesting. Employing combat maneuvers (disarm, trip,...), using items (thunderstone, tanglefoot bag,...), casting spells/activating magic items (telekinesis, black tentacles, activating boots of speed,...), and so on. All these options make combat more than a "back and forth" of attack/damage rolls. Oh, and characters can always talk in combat. Talking (within reasonable amounts) is considered a free (or even immediate, not sure on this right now) action. Along the lines of "you guys can talk to each other now". ;) But that's just my opinion. === Greetings, _Ra-Tiel.
Kintara 02-21-06, 03:10 PM	This thread in Regdar's (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=466430) had some interesting ideas. I posted something there, too. I don't like the "lose the rest of your attacks" fumble rule because I think it unduly punishes fighting types with lots of attacks. My solution was to offer a symetrical bonus on a 20, an extra attack at the same BAB, which would be in addition to the normal crit bonus damage.
Oneiros 02-21-06, 04:12 PM	Preferences of taste aside, I still think such a mechanic is unnecessary.Well, of course it's not neccessary, otherwise it'd be a core mechanic :P Also, the penalties from Power Attack and Combat Expertise last for a full round and add up. Perhaps the barbarian was in melee with the BBEG and used a -8 Power Attack to increase his damage and a -5 Combat Expertise to boost his AC. And the goblin was just a henchman/lackey/thrall ordered or forced into melee and the barbarian Cleaved onto him during his full attack... and *dumdum* there you have your fumble.There you have your *chance* of a fumble. First, the Barbarian would have to roll a 1, and then fail to hit a DC of 15 with his remaining +13 to hit (a 1 in 400 chance.) Compared to a 1st level fighter, who has, let's say, a +4 to hit (+1 BAB, +3 Str), rolling a 1 and then failing a fumble check is a 1 in 40 occurance. A 1st level wizard with +0 to hit would fumble his staff 1 in 27 times. I think it scales pretty nicely. I know you're arguing against fumbles in general, but you responded to a case I was making for my own system. I like my method, having thought through alot of the mechanical reasons some fumble rules are just bad. If you want to pick at it from that perspective, here it is again: On an attack roll, a natural "one" is a fumble threat. The character rolls again, using the same modifiers as the original attack roll, against a DC 15. Missing this roll confirms the fumble. The player then rolls a d20 on the fumble results table. Fumbles are only checked for on a character's first attack during a round. (I can post the fumble results table if anyone wants.) To be honest, I've never seen El Cid. But when I think "heroic fantasy" I do not envision a paladin fumbling around, dropping his holy avenger in the mud, or a mighty and learned wizard shooting his fireball into the sky instead of into the charging orc horde.I don't envision that either. I envision violent, life-and-death struggles where a savage blow can send a warrior's weapon flying, or a blade may tear into his chainmail, or a slippery slope in a rainstorm can cause him to lose his footing momentarily. This is all standard action movie stuff, we see it happen to the heroes all the time, and many people want to reproduce that in their game. I think the word "fumble" makes one think of some sort of klutzy manuever, like the guy is just standing there twirling his sword and sticks himself in the foot. It's not. It's frentic, deadly combat, and things can go awry. (Mechanically, your examples are a little off as well, at least per my system. Any paladin who has a Holy Avenger is going to have a high enough BAB + Sword bonus alone that any fumbles on his part will be on par with your cleaving barbarian above. Also, as Fireball isn't a targeted spell, so it can't be fumbled by any of the methods discussed in this thread. You're starting to resort to hyperbole to illustrate your argument.) So again, you have some legit arguments against some of the mechanics presented here. But when it comes to the intent behind why so many people want to add a similar mechanic to their games, I think you might consider that everyone's view of heroic fantasy isn't the same as your's, and that doesn't make their's neccessarily "laughable" or "absurd".
Ra-Tiel 02-21-06, 05:25 PM	Hi. === @jnrhayz: To each his own. Without differences in opinion how could we have these lovely conversations on the Wizards message boards? I wholeheartedly agree with that! :D --- Well, mutilation sucks. Have you ever played a character that was blind, mute, or missing a limb? Let me tell you, that is some interesting and complex role-playing going on there. (Which is why everyone should agree in the first place, if your co-players aren't willing to deal with the complications these things could cause- DO NOT USE THEM.) I have played a mutilated character... somewhat... a paladin with Str and Dex 8. Damn, it was crappy, but one of the most memorable characters I have played so far. But (;)) having a healthy character crippled and maimed for no obvious reason other than a stupid random table strikes me as silly. How could you enjoy playing a bard if she wears burn-scars all over her face, had her skin torn away over her left eye, had her right hand crushed, her left arm cut away, and both feet twisted and made useless? I know I'm exaggerating, but I think you get the point. Such a thing should always happen as a plot device in agreement with the player, and not because of some random freaky die roll. Such a thing can totally and completely screw over the player and his fun and entertainment with his character. Other, more likely example: low-magic world (for that grim-n-gritty feeling), and a greatsword-specialized fighter looses his left arm. So what now? Or the wizard looses his sight (perhaps due to some acid attack)? A blind arcane caster? I can envision that to be very funny! :rolleyes: (no offense intended :)) --- As for instant kill, well, I have mixed emotions about that. On one side, a basic orc (in my game) would have to roll a 20 to hit the 17th Level Barbarian's AC, a 20 to confirm, and then 100 on percentile to instant kill the Barbarian. While this would suck greatly for the Barbarian or even my rogue, wierd stuff like that does happen and would probably be talked about as one of the great memories of our game for years to come. Which for me, is worth the loss of the 17th level Barbarian (or even my current rogue). On that note, I didn't know about the d%, but anyways, it doesn't matter. Anything, and I mean really anything that increases the randomness in the game favors the monsters. How many attackrolls are made in a character's career against him? From level 1 to 20, how many? Now compare that to the number of attackrolls made against a single opponent in the same campaign. Even if the NPC was a major recuring villain, the number of attacks made against him is still much less than the number of attacks made against any PC in the party. So, even a 1/1.000.000.000 chance would still favor the monsters and NPCs, as the chance to instantly kill a PC despite any defenses he might have (miss chances aside) with a single blow. And that is so very wrong it makes me cry. :weep: Also, loosing a level 17 character, played from level 1 and up, to a lousy CR 1 orc random encounter that just got lucky on his dice rolls wouldn't be "one of the great memories of our game for years to come", it would be "the source of endless rage and ranting for years to come" for me, as nothing, and I repeat nothing, the orc could normally have done would have posed a threat to my character. There is a reason why the game designers themselves said: [...] The instant kill variant makes a game more lethal and combat more random. In any contest, an increase in randomness improves the odds for the underdog. Since the PCs win most fights, a rule that makes combat more random hurts the PCs more than it hurts their enemies. and [...] Fumbles are not appropriate to all games. They can add excitement or interest to combat, but they can also detract from the fun. They certainly add more randomness to combat. Add this variant rule only after careful consideration. --- Well, that is your viewpoint, but like I said, we like this system and it doesn't "screw" with our game much. Ok, if you have worked on that system in cooperation with your players, and all agreed on the rules, then ok. But still I would never join such a game. Combat is already interesting enough, no need to make it more interesting than is good for anyone. ;) --- Yeah, we tried other things. Most recently the Wound Point / Vitality Point thing - I run the game when our primary DM wants to play and I try different systems out. It will probably see some action in our next long term campaign (I can't say for sure as I am not the DM for that campaign, but I think everyone liked that system). However as we are only 9th level, we have some time before that will happen (unless we all die, we plan on playing through 20th level). Obviously with the Wound Point / Vitality thing, the chart doesn't make sense as critical hits apply to wound points. We would probably keep the critical miss chart though, because like I said, we like it. Although I would not suggest that (critical miss chart with vitality point system) to other groups. Vitality and Wounds suit a game style similar to the "Die Hard" movies. The heroes wading through endless hails of bullets... errr.... I mean... arrows... arrows and swords, and spells, and monsters, and traps, but surviving it all with minor scratches and being up again on their feet only in a matter of hours. ;) But the threat of mortality looms over every character, and there's the possibility that luck won't save a character's skin, and the arrow will flight true. Now that I think of it, were the LotR movies a DnD campaign, it would probably use Vitality and Wound points, as you've only rarely seen a character getting really hurt (Frodo, Boromir) but then it was pretty bad for them. :thinks: --- Overall, my experience with critical hit and miss charts has been positive. It isn't for everyone, but I think people could at least have fun experimenting with them to determine whether they work for their group or not. As said, if it works for your campaign/group then go for it. But I have hade some really gruesome experiences with "critical fumbles" (mostly in AD&D and in Werewolf-Apocalypse) and therefore I'm extremely cautious when having a random encounter with such a thing. --- Sure, my rogue is also a sorcerer, so I have a great dex, some magical armor protection, and I had cast shield. So I had a high AC. Also, I fought full defensive because I was just guarding his retreat. So I did that for about two rounds and then withdrew. I never tried to kill them, just not get killed and help my friend escape. Ok, now that would have helped to know before. :P === @Oneiros: Well, of course it's not neccessary, otherwise it'd be a core mechanic :P Take a look at the DMG, page 28, lower right. ;) --- There you have your *chance* of a fumble. First, the Barbarian would have to roll a 1, and then fail to hit a DC of 15 with his remaining +13 to hit (a 1 in 400 chance.) Compared to a 1st level fighter, who has, let's say, a +4 to hit (+1 BAB, +3 Str), rolling a 1 and then failing a fumble check is a 1 in 40 occurance. A 1st level wizard with +0 to hit would fumble his staff 1 in 27 times. I think it scales pretty nicely. Did you notice that you punish low level characters pretty harsh? And you wanted the level 1 character to have a ten times greater chance for a fumble than the high-level character? Are you sure about that? Considering even more that (baring magic and feats) both have only the same chance of inflicting an automatical crit (0.25%)? Ok, if you think that it adds enjoyment and entertainment to your game, and your players actually like it, then go for it. But such a ruling will never earn my interest for a game, no matter what. --- I know you're arguing against fumbles in general, but you responded to a case I was making for my own system. I like my method, having thought through alot of the mechanical reasons some fumble rules are just bad. If you want to pick at it from that perspective, here it is again: On an attack roll, a natural "one" is a fumble threat. The character rolls again, using the same modifiers as the original attack roll, against a DC 15. Missing this roll confirms the fumble. The player then rolls a d20 on the fumble results table. Fumbles are only checked for on a character's first attack during a round. (I can post the fumble results table if anyone wants.) Why is it an attack roll? From my understanding of the word, a fumble has nothing to do with skill at arms, but rather with an unfortunate combination of clumsiness, bad timing, and bad luck. Also, determining the result of the fumble with a random die seems highly inappropriate, as it can lead to strange or even comical results (please bear in mind that I don't know your table, but I'm talking from what I have seen on other such tables): A character tries to strike a gelatineous cube with his heavy mace, and the weapon becomes stuck in the creature's armor. Another character tries to disarm an opponent and his weapon breaks. The third character tries to shoot a bow kneeling from behind cover and falls prone. As said, all seen written on other "fumble tables"... --- I don't envision that either. I envision violent, life-and-death struggles where a savage blow can send a warrior's weapon flying, or a blade may tear into his chainmail, or a slippery slope in a rainstorm can cause him to lose his footing momentarily. "where a savage blow can send a warrior's weapon flying" --> disarm combat action. "a blade may tear into his chainmail" --> normal critical hit. "a slippery slope in a rainstorm can cause him to lose his footing momentarily" --> conditions as described under the Balance skill and Hill Terrain. In my opinion most of the things people try to achieve with "fumble" rules can already be achieved with the normal rules (but I admit that it sometimes requires a little tweaking). --- This is all standard action movie stuff, we see it happen to the heroes all the time, and many people want to reproduce that in their game. I think the word "fumble" makes one think of some sort of klutzy manuever, like the guy is just standing there twirling his sword and sticks himself in the foot. It's not. It's frentic, deadly combat, and things can go awry. And most of that stuff can already be reproduced with the normal rules. I guess many people (myself included) react hostile towards "fumble" rules, not only because the word "makes one think of some sort of klutzy manuever", but because in many cases it boils down to just that! Especially if the actual results are decided upon with another die roll. :noway: --- (Mechanically, your examples are a little off as well, at least per my system. Any paladin who has a Holy Avenger is going to have a high enough BAB + Sword bonus alone that any fumbles on his part will be on par with your cleaving barbarian above. Also, as Fireball isn't a targeted spell, so it can't be fumbled by any of the methods discussed in this thread. You're starting to resort to hyperbole to illustrate your argument.) With your system, yes. It's unlikely - but still possible - for the high-level character to drop his holy avenger. As for the second part, replace "fireball" with "disintegrate" and "orc horde" with "lich necromancer". --- So again, you have some legit arguments against some of the mechanics presented here. But when it comes to the intent behind why so many people want to add a similar mechanic to their games, I think you might consider that everyone's view of heroic fantasy isn't the same as your's, and that doesn't make their's neccessarily "laughable" or "absurd". I really didn't want to sound as if I was dismissing your style of gaming. Sorry if I came across that. But the most "fumble" rules I've see to the current day were some quickly thrown, not very well (if at all) though out, hillarious random tables that made your character do something incredibly stupid if you rolled a natural 1. I myself also prefer mostly "serious" games (but I'm not objected to one or another light-hearted breaks from it ;)) and "fumbles" usually don't mesh very well with what I think of in such a game. Too many "fumble" rulesets make DnD look like some fantasy Monty Phyton strip, and I'm extremely contrary to that. Again, if it works for your game, go for it, and don't let an old grumpy guy like me spoil your fun. :P === Greetings, _Ra-Tiel.
dystmesis 02-21-06, 09:21 PM	A natural 1 = critical hit xD
Hariman 02-22-06, 12:39 AM	But this made me really go: WTF?!? :uh-huh: You are serious about that, aren't you? Your DM does have some basic math skills, or? With that rule, a two-weapon fighting fighter or ranger with 4 attacks in the main hand and 3 attacks in the off hand has a 0,05(chance for nat1)*0,25(chance for specific result on the d4)*7(number of attacks)=8.75%chance per round to hit himself hit a friend sunder his own weapon disarm himself That's just crazy! :crazy: :nonono: I would smack that guy with the DMG and have that stupid rule removed or if it must be by all means replaced with something reasonable. That's just absolute non-sense. This is mechanically and mathematically speaking so bad, I can't find any words for it! :rant: === Greetings, _Ra-Tiel. Yes, I am serious. First off, that is one of the few (And very far between) problems with his campaign. Let's look at the list: 1: He's a great storyteller/actor. He does accents/attitudes for each character, male or female 2 to 7: He's got an entire homebrew city complete with complex political structure, varied shops, multiple power centers, intrigue, villains, heroes and much more. 8: He's focused on more fun for the players and is decided NOT a Player vs the DM DM. (Though he does let characters die if they die in battle somehow.) 9: He respects his player's opinions and listens to player input. (This helps a lot when rules issues arise.) 10: He doesn't bite the head off of players who look up the proper rules for special attacks. (And thanks you for looking it up when you do.) And I could probably go on for quite a while. The short version? Assault is not an option. But I am going to bring it up soon. I have his E-mail and I'll see him at a session in a few days. I'll try to get it changed but if he doesn't change it, I'll just keep playing. The party is only 4th/5th level right now, so it's not been a major issue. If it becomes a problem, I won't be the only one that complains. Second: The comments on a D100 attack system weren't part of future houserules. The "Natural 1 is just a 1" is a future houserule. That does float my boat. Third: I don't mean to come across as hostile in this post. If this post sounds hostile, don't take it as being hostile. Fourth: Everyone else seems indifferent to the critical fumbles. They're more a pet of the DM than anything else. They have actually benefitted the party in a fight with water elementals. (How does a Water Elemental slam attack itself to death?) He does make sure the fumble rule is diligently applied to enemies. Hariman PS: We don't have a TWFer in the party. So I think the odds go back to a 5% chance to fumble.
Mentar 02-22-06, 05:07 AM	Ra-Tiel If you don't like die rolls modified by die rolls, does that mean you don't use the critical hit system? In the game I am currently playing the DM uses a simple DC 5 (maybe 10) reflex save on a nat 1 or drop your weapon/break bowstring. Basicly he is saying for melee is that your grip on your weapon is loose, possibly due to blood/sweat on your hands. For bow users it takes longer to restring your bow then it takes to draw a new weapon for melee, but only 2 out of 12 players (yes the group is too big) have complained. One of the people who complained is not an exemplary player, and has interupted play several times, we are trying to train him but he just doesn't seem to be learning. The other person who complained had just joined the group and had his bowstring break, once he learned that it was a simple reflex save and wasn't something that required buying a new bow he was fine with it. BTW we play at a game store, so rule 1 is that if someone wants to join the game they can, thus the huge group.
Ra-Tiel 02-22-06, 05:28 AM	Hi. === @Hariman: I was just being sarcastic. :P I wouldn't want to ruin my DMG on him! ;) :D :P But I'd seriously talk to him over that. I find any kind of die roll to find out what or how you botched simply stupid, easy as that. If you look at the DMG, page 28, lower third, you'll see the designers themselves have made a variant rule up for "fumbles". But they don't use a table, but say the DM shoul decide on a minor glitch that should - at most - cost 1 round. Nothing more. No "you cut your own legs off", no "you're too stupid to wield your sword and throw it into the river", no "you let your weapon slip and hit your wizard buddy in the chest". :nonono: --- [...] The party is only 4th/5th level right now, so it's not been a major issue. If it becomes a problem, I won't be the only one that complains. [...] I don't know the classes involved, but one more level and your full BAB party members are looking at a second attack per round. And this basically doubles the chances of having to roll that freaky d4. === @Mentar: If you don't like die rolls modified by die rolls, does that mean you don't use the critical hit system? Wait a moment. I said that I don't like using a die roll to determine the effect/magnitude of a "fumble". Please don't put words in my mouth I haven't said. I also clearly stated that I play with the mechanics as detailed in the PHb (read: critical hits and automatic misses included). The nat1/nat20/critc mechanics are an integral part of the d20 system, and the game is balanced with/around those concepts. And, more importantly: these mechanics were playtested. Something that cannot be said of all of the variant "fumble" rules floating around. :rolleyes: --- In the game I am currently playing the DM uses a simple DC 5 (maybe 10) reflex save on a nat 1 or drop your weapon/break bowstring. Basicly he is saying for melee is that your grip on your weapon is loose, possibly due to blood/sweat on your hands. Your DM isn't by chance using the variant rule from the DMG? Sounds pretty much like it. This rule is within limits (if you just have to have "fumble" rules). Note how this rules says that the DM should decide on what happens depending on the circumstances, and not just roll on a random table. --- For bow users it takes longer to restring your bow then it takes to draw a new weapon for melee, but only 2 out of 12 players (yes the group is too big) have complained. One of the people who complained is not an exemplary player, and has interupted play several times, we are trying to train him but he just doesn't seem to be learning. The other person who complained had just joined the group and had his bowstring break, once he learned that it was a simple reflex save and wasn't something that required buying a new bow he was fine with it. You don't play with all 12 people at once? :uh-huh: :eek: :gah: --- BTW we play at a game store, so rule 1 is that if someone wants to join the game they can, thus the huge group. No need to justify yourself. If you like that - and more importantly: if your DM can organize that all - then have fun. :ayyyy!: === Greetings, _Ra-Tiel.
TheAcousticBandit 02-22-06, 04:09 PM	in the campaign im in a natural 1= auto miss, loose remaining attacks, and maybe something cinimatic if the dm is feeling it.
Ra-Tiel 02-22-06, 05:31 PM	Hi. === @TheAcousticBandit: in the campaign im in a natural 1= auto miss, loose remaining attacks, and maybe something cinimatic if the dm is feeling it. When I'm presented with such a rule, I cannot resist commenting on it. The first part I have no problem with. Natural 1 = automatic miss is the standard rule. So far ok. The third part I have also no problem with, if the DM doesn't ab-/overuse it and keeps with the suggestions in the DMG, p.28. It's the second part that totally freaks me out. :P At levels 1-7 this wouldn't be as much a problem, but from level 11+ and/or in combination with two-weapon fighting this really and unnecessarily punishes characters. What adds insult to injury, is the fact that this all happens automatically on a natural 1. So a two-weapon fighting ranger past level 11 in your group would have 6 attacks with a full-attack action: main hand +11/+6/+1 and off-hand +11/+6/+1 (modified by the penalties for twf and strength/enhancements) and thus a 30% chance for a fumble each round. Sorry, but that's not for me. :noway: === I really cannot see any possible reason why all people think that "fumbles" will make the game more interesting. I guess I'll not understand this until I die, as I cannot imagine any situation where it would be a benefit to the game. Apparently, it only serves to screw over the characters, as a monster or NPC most likely wouldn't have survived the combat anyways. But the PCs are subject to this time again and again and again. I personally would loose my fun with the game very soon, especially if I played a melee-focused character. Following the variant rule in the DMG is ok in my opinion, but anything that goes beyond that is just well beyond my understanding. Especially determining the result or consequence of the fumble with a die roll/table strikes me as even more insane, as it does not allow the DM to adjust the event. So, I just attacked that gelatineous cube, and my weapon broke on the creature's armor? :uh-huh: For the same reason I absolutely despise hit-location tables. But that's another story... --- Again, what ever floats your boat for your campaign, but don't ever expect me to like it, advise it, comment favorably on it, or not rant against it. I think I have made my point now clear enough several times, and therefore I will always, always and I repeat always, speak out against fumble rules. In my opinion, such a rule only takes away from the fun of the game, subjecting the PCs to even more randomness beyond their control, thus imposing yet another disadvantage on them. And at the very last, such a rule does screw with the class balance and game mechanics, no matter what you think. So, your paladin just accidentally beheaded the princess he tried to save from the nasty hobgoblin high-priest? Well, he better finds some cleric for an atonement, because I don't think that his patron deity will care if he slaughtered the young woman accidentally or with intent... :rolleyes: === Greetings, _Ra-Tiel.
Akimatsu 02-22-06, 09:53 PM	I am all for fumble rules. If you have critical hits, I personally think you should have a fumble rule as well. People mess up as much as they do extremely well. If you roll a 1, you make a reflex save, dc 15. If you pass, nothing happens. If you fail you suffer -2 to all physical type rolls until your next turn. (Such as attacks, reflex saves and what not). Its not to harsh of a system, but it does add something for fumbles.
jnrhayz 02-23-06, 10:25 AM	So, your paladin just accidentally beheaded the princess he tried to save from the nasty hobgoblin high-priest? Well, he better finds some cleric for an atonement, because I don't think that his patron deity will care if he slaughtered the young woman accidentally or with intent... It's funny that you mentioned that because in a game I was running, the BBEG was using the princess for cover. Anyway, the PC hit the princess and killed her. This was completely without fumble rules, but I still thought it was funny that you mentioned that. However, as the DM, I didn't let her die, she was just in the negatives and they had to save her the next round or she would die. I am such a nice DM. This does make me think about other fumble things, sometimes when I DM, I just make the call that while the fumble or critical result "should" occur based on what you rolled, it doesn't make sense for it to occur and I overrule it. That is were common sense overrules the fumble table, like breaking your wepon on the target's armor when the target has no armor. Normally I just say you lucked out and nothing bad happens (just like some creatures can't get criticals, sometimes you don't fumble). On a completely side note, in some of my games, if you roll a 1, but with modifiers still hit, you roll damage and apply it to the target. Normally with this kind of fumble you get your weapon stuck in the target or in a tree or something (like in the movies). It sure freaked the BBEG out though since he saw them just start cutting into his cover. So as they tried to save the princess, he ran away. I can't help but see my players face when that happened and laugh.
Ra-Tiel 02-23-06, 11:07 AM	Hi. @jnrhayz { It's funny that you mentioned that because in a game I was running, the BBEG was using the princess for cover. Anyway, the PC hit the princess and killed her. This was completely without fumble rules, but I still thought it was funny that you mentioned that. :uh-huh: :confused: :looloo: If I was DM, every character that intentionally did even 1 point of damage to the princess would instantly shift 1 step closer to evil (assuming they weren't already evil). An action like this shows the characters didn't have any respect for life and willingly accepted pain and suffering on another's part as a viable means to reach their goals. For me it wouldn't matter if the girl survived or not. :noway: //---------------// However, as the DM, I didn't let her die, she was just in the negatives and they had to save her the next round or she would die. I am such a nice DM. This does make me think about other fumble things, sometimes when I DM, I just make the call that while the fumble or critical result "should" occur based on what you rolled, it doesn't make sense for it to occur and I overrule it. You were indeed a nice DM... very nice, after all. ;) //---------------// That is were common sense overrules the fumble table, like breaking your wepon on the target's armor when the target has no armor. Normally I just say you lucked out and nothing bad happens (just like some creatures can't get criticals, sometimes you don't fumble). I know, but most DMs strictly adhere to their "fumble tables", and this is where the parody part enters the stage. See breaking your weapon on a gelatineous cube. :rolleyes: //---------------// On a completely side note, in some of my games, if you roll a 1, but with modifiers still hit, you roll damage and apply it to the target. Normally with this kind of fumble you get your weapon stuck in the target or in a tree or something (like in the movies). If my players were asking for such a thing, I'd simply refuse. I'd tell them to use their imagination when they want looking stupid in combat, but not rely on me... Because, seriously, would you have your character stand in melee with a barbarian that could accidentally hit you with a 1.25% chance per attack he makes? I definitively wouldn't. //---------------// It sure freaked the BBEG out though since he saw them just start cutting into his cover. So as they tried to save the princess, he ran away. I can't help but see my players face when that happened and laugh. Why did the BBEG run away? Why didn't he take the AoO on the character trying to administer first aid or a cure wounds spell? Why didn't he just kill the helpless girl and Cleave onto one of the characters? In my games, I'd have the villain pull all stops in such a situation. The heroes had killed the girl, after all... ;) } Greetings, _Ra-Tiel.
Oneiros 02-23-06, 12:02 PM	Especially determining the result or consequence of the fumble with a die roll/table strikes me as even more insane, as it does not allow the DM to adjust the event. So, I just attacked that gelatineous cube, and my weapon broke on the creature's armor? :uh-huh:You've mentioned this one a couple times, so I feel complelled to comment. Obviously, for someone who uses a Mishap table (there, I've started a campaign to stop using the word "Fumble" - happy? :P ), there might be results which are non-applicable to the current situation. Why is it you're assumption that the DM must slavishly adhere to the result of the table/roll? I think most DM's can be counted on to ignore or modify such results. On my own table, a roll of "20" is "DM's choice or roll again." I consider that option to apply to any wonky result that comes up for a particular situation. Also, the advantage of having a table, at least to me, is that I don't have to think up a specific Mishap off the top of my head each time, and avoids the repititious nature of always having the exact same mishap occur. Long time ago we used a rule where a fumble always meant your weapon was knocked from your hand. Now we get a little more tension with "I missed my Mishap check! What happens next?" Apparently, it only serves to screw over the characters, as a monster or NPC most likely wouldn't have survived the combat anyways. But the PCs are subject to this time again and again and again. ... In my opinion, such a rule only takes away from the fun of the game, subjecting the PCs to even more randomness beyond their control, thus imposing yet another disadvantage on them.You mean like saving throws made against spells with even worse, more frustrating results? (Hold Person, Web, Confusion...) Most Mishap results are minor in comparison. My current character is 7th level with a Will save of 2. Everytime I have to make a Will Save, I'm feeling a great deal of randomness beyond my control, because the result is probably going to be much worse than a dropped weapon. The Critical Hit is something else which PCs are subjected to over and over again. At third level my character was dropped to -8 from a single hit, first round of combat, before he ever got to swing due to a critical hit from an opponent. How is that more balanced than a well thought-out Mishap rule? I mean, is the current level of randomness in the game "perfectly balanced"? I have bigger issues with things like the widely variable range of Critical Hit damage, or the non-scaling nature of Trip attacks, escaping Web, or most other attribute checks which have a much greater degree of randomness than things based on Saves or BAB. (IMC, I've actually house-ruled damage rolls to use extra dice in place of a flat bonus, so a +6, for example, is changed to a +d6. Randomness is actually increased, but with the net result of average damage being decreased, thus softening insta-kill criticals.) And at the very last, such a rule does screw with the class balance and game mechanics, no matter what you think.Quite an absolute, authoritative stance, there. I respect it as your opinion, but do not grant that it's true "no matter what I think." There's quite a few different Mishap mechanics presented in this thread, and you've demonstrated how some of them are indeed broken. But this last statement implies that it is a given that it is impossible to create a fair Mishap system from a mechanical POV, and it is foolish to think otherwise. That blanket assertation I don't think you have proven (and probably can't unless you do it for every single Mishap system presented, now and forever, amen.) Again, what ever floats your boat for your campaign, but don't ever expect me to like it, advise it, comment favorably on it, or not rant against it. I think I have made my point now clear enough several times, and therefore I will always, always and I repeat always, speak out against fumble rules.Not a problem. With good, logical arguments against the mechanics or clear indication on matters of opinion such as flavor and preference, you're welcome to float your own boat as well. ;)
jnrhayz 02-23-06, 12:24 PM	If I was DM, every character that intentionally did even 1 point of damage to the princess would instantly shift 1 step closer to evil (assuming they weren't already evil). It was not intentional, there is a rule (somewhere) that states that if the attack roll beats the AC of the target and misses because of the bonus provided by cover, the attack strikes the cover. Now to be honest, I have no idea if this is a core rule or one of those optional sidebar things or even a carryover from something from 3.0, but we use that in our games. I thought everybody did. Sorry. ;) I know, but most DMs strictly adhere to their "fumble tables", and this is where the parody part enters the stage. See breaking your weapon on a gelatineous cube. Yeah, that could get annoying. I think this is where the DM should have the sense to look at things in at least a slightly logical manner. If they don't, there are probably more problems with the DM than just this. Why did the BBEG run away? Why didn't he take the AoO on the character trying to administer first aid or a cure wounds spell? Why didn't he just kill the helpless girl and Cleave onto one of the characters? A group of heroes came to save the princess and then they cut her down just to get to him. Also, his "turn" was before anyone else could do anything, so, he feels the girl fall limp and crumple to the ground. They are trying to surround him and all of his minions had been sliced down also. There was a clear route (no AoO) to the exit, so he took it. Why is it you're assumption that the DM must slavishly adhere to the result of the table/roll? I think most DM's can be counted on to ignore or modify such results. On my own table, a roll of "20" is "DM's choice or roll again." I consider that option to apply to any wonky result that comes up for a particular situation. Also, the advantage of having a table, at least to me, is that I don't have to think up a specific Mishap off the top of my head each time, and avoids the repititious nature of always having the exact same mishap occur. I completely agree with this. If the DM can't judge when or when not to let the "mishap" table apply, they probably shouldn't use the "mishap" table.
Oneiros 02-23-06, 01:28 PM	Now to be honest, I have no idea if this is a core rule or one of those optional sidebar things or even a carryover from something from 3.0, but we use that in our games. I thought everybody did. Sorry. ;)Yep... that is a 3.0 hold-over, removed for your princess' safety in 3.5 (along with degrees of cover, which I liked.) I completely agree with this. If the DM can't judge when or when not to let the "mishap" table apply, they probably shouldn't use the "mishap" table.Hah! Gotcha to say "mishap" :D
jnrhayz 02-23-06, 01:42 PM	Yep... that is a 3.0 hold-over, removed for your princess' safety in 3.5 (along with degrees of cover, which I liked.) Well, don't I feel dumb. I guess I need to re-read some things. Anyway, it was still funny. :embarrass Well, I think they work well. Have to talk to the group about that one.
Ra-Tiel 02-23-06, 03:53 PM	Hi. @Oneiros { [...] You mean like saving throws made against spells with even worse, more frustrating results? (Hold Person, Web, Confusion...) Most Mishap results are minor in comparison. [...] Really? Drawing an AoO from that titan or throwing away your weapon several squares is most likely the death sentence for pretty much every character with less than a d8 as HD. Also, a lot of "frustration" has been removed in v3.5. And (as I'm going to point out below) there are defenses against most things you stated. //---------------// [...] My current character is 7th level with a Will save of 2. Everytime I have to make a Will Save, I'm feeling a great deal of randomness beyond my control, because the result is probably going to be much worse than a dropped weapon. [...] But you can defend against that: Aura of Courage, Protection from Evil, Mind Blank, Empty Mind (just to name a few). //---------------// [...] The Critical Hit is something else which PCs are subjected to over and over again. At third level my character was dropped to -8 from a single hit, first round of combat, before he ever got to swing due to a critical hit from an opponent. How is that more balanced than a well thought-out Mishap rule? [...] First, I had my warforged fighter/paladin killed twice by critical hits (and after the second one he stayed dead). So what? That's the rules of the game. But I've also had my share of crazy moments, like the poor Emerald-Claw bastards on the airship in "Whispers of the vampires's blade" standing against me, 6 vs 1. After round 2, all of them were dead. :ayyyy!: Second, there are defenses against critical hit damage: damage reduction, miss chances, fast healing/regeneration, spells that grant immunity to crits (just to name a few). //---------------// [...] I mean, is the current level of randomness in the game "perfectly balanced"? [...] That is the amount of randomness the game was designed with and balanced around. But "fumbles" or "mishaps" add randomness beyond that, which is bad for the PCs. If you are already complaining about the many factors that stand against the players, why in all layers of infinite abyss are you introducing yet another element that opposes the PCs? That I do not understand. //---------------// [...] I have bigger issues with things like the widely variable range of Critical Hit damage, [...] But that's just part of the game, as where "fumbles" are not. //---------------// [...] or the non-scaling nature of Trip attacks, [...] Which is actually a good thing! Trip is not dependend on BAB (not counting the initial melee touch attack), only on Strength, feats, tactics and luck. Otherwise, trip would be horribly weak at higher levels, as most monsters have a much higher BAB than PCs (dragons, anyone?). //---------------// [...] escaping Web, or most other attribute checks which have a much greater degree of randomness than things based on Saves or BAB.[...] Ever tried Freedom of Movement? Or the Escape Artist skill? Burning Hands? Dimension Door? As said, against almost every tactic in DnD there is at least a single valid counter-tactic. But not against "fumbles". Unless you present some Protection from Fumbles or similar thing, I'll stand by this opinion. ;) //---------------// But this last statement implies that it is a given that it is impossible to create a fair Mishap system from a mechanical POV, and it is foolish to think otherwise. That blanket assertation I don't think you have proven (and probably can't unless you do it for every single Mishap system presented, now and forever, amen.) The game designers have said that themselves (and I've quoted them already). (A) Everything that adds more randomness to the game hurts the PCs more than anyone else. (B) "Fumble" rules introduce more randomness to the game. (C) PCs are subject to "fumble" rules. A + B + C => "Fumbles" hurt the PCs more than anyone else. //---------------// Not a problem. With good, logical arguments against the mechanics or clear indication on matters of opinion such as flavor and preference, you're welcome to float your own boat as well. And I probably will. :D ;) //---------------// I just want to add something: I took a look at your "fumble" table, and some things strike me pretty strong. Note that this is not meant as an insult to you, or a dismissing of your style of play, it's just some comments I'd like to make. Melee: "03-04": Why the 1d4-1 squares of distance? Even an opponent skilled in Improved Disarm could not remove your weapon that far from your square (he can only grab it himself if he attempted to disarm you while unarmed - which by itself carries some hefty penalties). Also, what if the dice determine that you just threw your weapon off the ship on the ocean? Into a lava river? Down an endless pit? Do you think it's fair to possibly hurt the PCs in such a harsh way? Do you just say "yep buddy, that's it, tough luck!" when your paladin PC irrevocably lost the holy defender he was trusted to bring to a certain temple to help destroy an evil artifact? Or when your fighter just lost his +2 keen flaming greatsword he's been saving for since level 1 and invested most of his resources into? "05": I know I'm playing devil's advocate here, but why do you only provoke an AoO from the target you were attacking? Isn't it normally the case that if you let down your defense (such as when using a skill actively, or casting a spell) you draw AoOs from every enemy that threatens you? "10": What happens when the character's weapon has special abilities, like wounding or flaming? Is that damage also added? "11-12": I have two opinions on this one: from personal taste, this is the second worst (and stupid, imho) result a "fumble" table can include. why are critical hits not allowed? After all, if you're clumsy enough to hit your wizard buddy instead of the hobgoblin blackguard, you could just as well chop off you're friend's head, or slit open his throat... "15-16": You know that in DnD v3.5 sundering armor is not a valid combat action? Just wanted to add that one. :) Ranged: "01-04": What consequences would that have for an archer using a bow? Do you just drop one arrow or the whole quiver? If you only drop one arrow, this isn't a hindrance at all, is it? As said above, these are just my comments to your (now completely read) rules set. Happy gaming. :) } @jnrhazy { Well, don't I feel dumb. I guess I need to re-read some things. Anyway, it was still funny. Well, I think they work well. Have to talk to the group about that one. I must disagree. Even if it was not intended to kill her, the pure acceptance of possible harm to come to her due to one's own actions speaks a very clear language, imho. I don't know who struck her down, but that character willingly accepted that his strike might hit an innocent girl. And that alone would be enough for me as a DM to instantly justify an alignment-shift. With this action, the character has shown his reclessness, and his will to hurt others just to reach his own goals. It would be similar to a wizard fireballing an orphanage just to get the thieve who stole his spellbook. He doesn't care if some innocent might get hurt (or worse!) or not, as long as he can just get away with his goals. But I don't want to derail this thread into an alignment discussion. :) } Greetings, _Ra-Tiel.
Oneiros 02-24-06, 04:05 PM	Really? Drawing an AoO from that titan or throwing away your weapon several squares is most likely the death sentence for pretty much every character with less than a d8 as HD. You always use such extreme examples... 1) Are these somehow not a death sentence if the AoO or dropped weapon (disarm) occur by some other means than a Mishap? 2) Characters fighting a CR21 titan are more than likely going to be virtually immune to mishaps in my system, as their attack bonus will be like, really high 3) Most characters I know carry a back-up weapon of some kind, even if it's just a dagger. But you can defend against that: Aura of Courage, Protection from Evil, Mind Blank, Empty Mind (just to name a few). ... Ever tried Freedom of Movement? Or the Escape Artist skill? Burning Hands? Dimension Door?Grrr... this argument always honks me off. Of course there's a tactic to deal with just about every situation. But first one has to have access to said tactics at the moment the situation happens. My character is a Scout, so he personally can't use any of the spells, nor has he any ranks in Escape Artist. And how often will my spellcasting buddies have these spells memorized, and then be able to cast them on me in time? Casters only have so many spells per day - they can't be prepared for everything, even if the appropriate spell exists. In a way, spell selection is another element of randomness in the game, and the game is not balanced by the fact that for every X there's a Y that counters it, since access to Y is not a certainty. Add to that the fact that there are often mechanics to counter the counter (Dispel Magic, anyone?) Second, there are defenses against critical hit damage: damage reduction, miss chances, fast healing/regeneration, spells that grant immunity to crits (just to name a few). ... As said, against almost every tactic in DnD there is at least a single valid counter-tactic. But not against "fumbles". Unless you present some Protection from Fumbles or similar thing, I'll stand by this opinion. ;)See my note above regarding defenses. Also, anything that gives a bonus on attack rolls is a defense against fumbles in my system, and anything that gives a bonus to REF saves is a defense for the DMG variant. For low-tech, a locked gauntlet is handy for not dropping your weapon. So these two systems are not beyond the control of the characters, any more than anything else involving a d20 roll in the game is. That is the amount of randomness the game was designed with and balanced around. But "fumbles" or "mishaps" add randomness beyond that, which is bad for the PCs.So... crit rules which can lead to insta-kills (especially with the Massive Damage rule) = "balanced" & "fun" & "suck it up"; fumble rules which cause minor mishaps during combat = "unbalanced" & "not fun" & "to be railed against". Got it. I mean, c'mon. How does instant death from a critical fit your vision of a heroic game more than adding a minor element of chaos to combat? If you are already complaining about the many factors that stand against the players, why in all layers of infinite abyss are you introducing yet another element that opposes the PCs? That I do not understand.I'm not complaining - just countering the argument you made that the other randomness in the game is somehow more "in the player's control." It's simply not. If there were, for example, 10 random elements in the game, a character can probably negate one or two, improve his odds significantly against another four or five, and the rest are pretty much still up to chance. This can vary between characters as well, depending on player choices during build. Also, a good DM will occasionally find ways to circumvent those "sure defenses/attacks" to keep the players challenged, thus increasing randomness again. The game designers have said that themselves (and I've quoted them already). (A) Everything that adds more randomness to the game hurts the PCs more than anyone else. (B) "Fumble" rules introduce more randomness to the game. (C) PCs are subject to "fumble" rules. A + B + C => "Fumbles" hurt the PCs more than anyone else.I don't disagree with this (though "hurts" might be a word biasing the argument a little too much - "affects" would be my preference.) But "A" is true pretty much of everything in the game. So the question becomes, does the extra randomness break the system in terms of balance and fun? From a pure gaming standpoint, each encounter carries a certain level of risk that the PC's will "lose" some die rolls. Adding in mishaps increases that level of risk. But whether or not the increase is unacceptable is purely a gaming preference. To me, automatic fumble on a "1" is not acceptable, but having the "1" followed by another d20 check is. Having the check use a REF save favors high REF characters, which I also do not favor, so I shifted it to an attack roll, favoring high BAB characters instead. But that's just part of the game, as where "fumbles" are not.By that logic we wouldn't even have a 3rd edition. Plus, fumbles are part of my game. :D Which is actually a good thing! Trip is not dependend on BAB (not counting the initial melee touch attack), only on Strength, feats, tactics and luck. Otherwise, trip would be horribly weak at higher levels, as most monsters have a much higher BAB than PCs (dragons, anyone?).Tripping dragons? Now who's conjuring up absurd images? :P Seriously, why does tripping have to rely on luck more than any other combat tactic? And who says it has to be based on BAB? This is getting a bit off topic, but I'd envision it more as a REF save - possibly modified by STR instead of DEX. Like I said, something that scales similar to the rest of the game. In fact, I'd like to see Attribute checks dumped altogether in favor of a Save associated with each attribute. Since attribute checks are already a type of saving throw, it would actually reduce the number of different save types in the game. It'd be interesting, for example, for Ench-Charm spells to require a Wis save, Ench-Compulsion to require a Cha save, and Illusions to have an Int save. "03-04": Why the 1d4-1 squares of distance? Even an opponent skilled in Improved Disarm could not remove your weapon that far from your square (he can only grab it himself if he attempted to disarm you while unarmed - which by itself carries some hefty penalties). Also, what if the dice determine that you just threw your weapon off the ship on the ocean? Into a lava river? Down an endless pit? Do you think it's fair to possibly hurt the PCs in such a harsh way? Do you just say "yep buddy, that's it, tough luck!" when your paladin PC irrevocably lost the holy defender he was trusted to bring to a certain temple to help destroy an evil artifact? Or when your fighter just lost his +2 keen flaming greatsword he's been saving for since level 1 and invested most of his resources into? First: 1d4-1 squares - this is mainly a hold over from the way I've handled it in previous editions. The fact that Disarm can't knock your weapon further away I also see as a mark against it. I also allow a character to pick up an item in a square within his reach, so one square away isn't a big deal. Having the weapon knocked further away can also allow the character a chance to retreat to pick it up, or prevent the opponent from retrieving it himself (which is would be easy enough - the now unarmed character doesn't threaten, so no AoO for picking up an item.) Second: As I've said before, if I think a result on the table in going to be too harsh on the character for the particular situation, I'll modify or ignore it. I might declare the weapon has landed in a precarious position the character has to save it from, or has fallen in his space, or simply re-roll/ignore the result. I know there are DM's who would take extreme pleasure in getting to screw a player this way, but I'm not that guy. Have you never fudged a die roll in favor of the PC's, even under the core rules? "05": I know I'm playing devil's advocate here, but why do you only provoke an AoO from the target you were attacking? Isn't it normally the case that if you let down your defense (such as when using a skill actively, or casting a spell) you draw AoOs from every enemy that threatens you?Because I have strickly defined boundaries of meanness :angel: "10": What happens when the character's weapon has special abilities, like wounding or flaming? Is that damage also added?Nope. For the "Injure Self" result, I leave it open to interpretation as to the cause of the injury, because in a violent combat, there's plenty of other ways to hurt yourself other than hitting yourself with your own weapon. That's why it's a generic d6 damage, instead of the weapon's die. "11-12": why are critical hits not allowed? After all, if you're clumsy enough to hit your wizard buddy instead of the hobgoblin blackguard, you could just as well chop off you're friend's head, or slit open his throat... 'Cuz it's just a glancing blow. And I'm still not that mean. You're pickin' on me because my mishaps aren't as extreme as the other fumble charts you hate? :P "15-16": You know that in DnD v3.5 sundering armor is not a valid combat action? Just wanted to add that one. :)Yeah, I know. This isn't an actual Sunder action, more a reflection that armor should occasionally be damaged in combat, IMHO. A mending spell or craft check will fix it right up, though. Ranged: "01-04": What consequences would that have for an archer using a bow? Do you just drop one arrow or the whole quiver? If you only drop one arrow, this isn't a hindrance at all, is it? It is if it's your last arrow ;)
Hariman 02-24-06, 07:40 PM	I think a good argument against a fumble (Mishap) rule is: Wasted Time. One missed attack is very fast and easy to deal with. Taking the time for mishap rolls just adds what some would consider wasted time. Plus, it does tend to affect the party more. The party has to deal with the fumble rules for the entire campaign. NPCs, typically, don't. NPCs are usually around for only one fight or a few fights. The second reason doesn't apply if you have lots of time for each session and like the extra flavor that a mishap table adds.
Oneiros 02-24-06, 08:21 PM	Plus, it does tend to affect the party more. The party has to deal with the fumble rules for the entire campaign. NPCs, typically, don't. NPCs are usually around for only one fight or a few fights.Yeah, that was the point Ra-Teil was making. However, a couple of things to consider: PCs also have to make saving throws the entire campaign. So fumble checks are another element similar to this. Yes, it's one more element they have to deal with, but if you're adding a fumble rule, then that's pretty self-evident. Collectively, NPCs have to deal with fumbles the entire campaign, too. That is, the DM has to deal with them just like the players for each encounter.
Ra-Tiel 02-24-06, 08:48 PM	Hi. @Oneiros { You always use such extreme examples... My friends revere and fear my examples! :angelhide //---------------// 1) Are these somehow not a death sentence if the AoO or dropped weapon (disarm) occur by some other means than a Mishap? Because you haven't lost your own action(s) and then enemy used one of his actions (possibly drawing AoOs) and you had a chance to defend against. //---------------// 2) Characters fighting a CR21 titan are more than likely going to be virtually immune to mishaps in my system, as their attack bonus will be like, really high I think one reason for my criticism: how do you treat a natural 1 on the "confirmation" roll? //---------------// 3) Most characters I know carry a back-up weapon of some kind, even if it's just a dagger. A dagger very possibly without any practical worth for them in combat? ;) //---------------// Grrr... this argument always honks me off. Of course there's a tactic to deal with just about every situation. But first one has to have access to said tactics at the moment the situation happens. My character is a Scout, so he personally can't use any of the spells, nor has he any ranks in Escape Artist. And how often will my spellcasting buddies have these spells memorized, and then be able to cast them on me in time? Casters only have so many spells per day - they can't be prepared for everything, even if the appropriate spell exists. In a way, spell selection is another element of randomness in the game, and the game is not balanced by the fact that for every X there's a Y that counters it, since access to Y is not a certainty. Add to that the fact that there are often mechanics to counter the counter (Dispel Magic, anyone?) Why's that? A wand of protection from evil is absuredly cheap the moment you're past level 2 or 3, and if it's not worth that little for your whole party to keep you and themselves save, I don't know else. And not every encounter starts with a chained targetted greater dispel magic or a mordenkainen's disjunction against the players. Well... rather, it shouldn't. An enemy caster is usually served better to use some of his spells to keep the melee-guys away from him (improved invisibility, fly,...) and to keep the party's casters busy with his castings (black tentacles, solid fog, summon monster, enervation,...) instead of focusing on the barbarians or fighters (which are - after all - toast themselves once their magical support is gone). //---------------// See my note above regarding defenses. Also, anything that gives a bonus on attack rolls is a defense against fumbles in my system, and anything that gives a bonus to REF saves is a defense for the DMG variant. For low-tech, a locked gauntlet is handy for not dropping your weapon. So these two systems are not beyond the control of the characters, any more than anything else involving a d20 roll in the game is. As mentioned above, I think the main reason we're still arguing back and forth on this one is that I think you haven't mentioned how you treat a natural 1 on that second roll. And if my memory serves me right, your webpage doesn't state that either. Also, a locked gauntlet has by itself some other - imho quite severe - penalties for using. //---------------// So... crit rules which can lead to insta-kills (especially with the Massive Damage rule) = "balanced" & "fun" & "suck it up"; fumble rules which cause minor mishaps during combat = "unbalanced" & "not fun" & "to be railed against". Got it. First I'd like to say that the moment massive damage enters the scene, most characters are already :censored:, as few pre-epic characters I know of can soak up 50+ points of damage multiple times a round for a longer period. Then I'd like to mention that this "minor mishaps" is still open to interpretation. It highly depends on what result came up in what situation. A badly timed "fumble" could have just the same result as a 90 points of damage critical hit: a dead character. Finally, the critical hit mechanic is an integral part of the mechanics, while "fumbles" are not. //---------------// I mean, c'mon. How does instant death from a critical fit your vision of a heroic game more than adding a minor element of chaos to combat? How does Bruce Willis dying in a nuclear explosion to save the world from a "half-fiendish" meteor fit your vision of a heroic movie? Or Arnie succumbing to his wounds after he defeated Satan? Or the emotion-criminal in Equilibrium being burned after showing Preston the value of love and emotion? Or the girl in Chronicles of Riddick being transformed into a necromonger and then killed in the "throneroom" after he finally realized what she meant to him? Sometimes the good guys have to suffer, sometimes a hero has to die. My slain warforged paladin now serves as a silent reminder and inspiration to a whole new group of warforged paladins of Onatar, who revere him for his selflessness, and his will to suffer personal loss for the wellbeing of others. Had he not been split almost in two by that minotaur zombie, god knows what would have happened to the other warforged. Perhaps they still would have followed righteousness and honor. But perhaps some - or even all of them - would have fallen to the corruption inside the great churches. Who knows? After they knew of his death, they organized an expedition into the Mournland to recover his mortal hull, despite the great dangers that lurk there. They brought him home, repaired his flayed body, and put him into a stone sarcophagus in their own small shrine, next to (but still below) the statue of Onatar. At least I know that the death of my paladin was not in vain, and that he served as a good example for others. And that is sometimes much more fullfilling for a player than his character reaching a new level. //---------------// I'm not complaining - just countering the argument you made that the other randomness in the game is somehow more "in the player's control." It's simply not. If there were, for example, 10 random elements in the game, a character can probably negate one or two, improve his odds significantly against another four or five, and the rest are pretty much still up to chance. This can vary between characters as well, depending on player choices during build. Also, a good DM will occasionally find ways to circumvent those "sure defenses/attacks" to keep the players challenged, thus increasing randomness again. Ok, perhaps I've misunderstood you there. But the point I was trying to get across is that the amount of randomness in the game is the expected level of randomness. //---------------// I don't disagree with this (though "hurts" might be a word biasing the argument a little too much - "affects" would be my preference.) But "A" is true pretty much of everything in the game. So the question becomes, does the extra randomness break the system in terms of balance and fun? From a pure gaming standpoint, each encounter carries a certain level of risk that the PC's will "lose" some die rolls. Adding in mishaps increases that level of risk. But whether or not the increase is unacceptable is purely a gaming preference. To me, automatic fumble on a "1" is not acceptable, but having the "1" followed by another d20 check is. Having the check use a REF save favors high REF characters, which I also do not favor, so I shifted it to an attack roll, favoring high BAB characters instead. I know that (A) pretty much relates to every die roll in the game. That was my point. The characters already suffer from so much randomness that can strike out against their favors, that I simply fail to understand why some people just seem to have to add yet another one - in one way or another. //---------------// By that logic we wouldn't even have a 3rd edition. Plus, fumbles are part of my game. :D How do you mean that? Plus, I never told you to get away with them. ;) I always said that this was my opinion on that topic, and that others are of course free to differ. Also it was never my intent to sound rude or dismissing. If I did come across so at some point, I'm sincerely sorry about that. //---------------// Tripping dragons? Now who's conjuring up absurd images? :P Seriously, why does tripping have to rely on luck more than any other combat tactic? And who says it has to be based on BAB? This is getting a bit off topic, but I'd envision it more as a REF save - possibly modified by STR instead of DEX. Like I said, something that scales similar to the rest of the game. I was bringing up dragons as an example for creatures with an exceptional high BAB for their CR, which would have players go like "geesh.. a dragon? then I don't even have to try to trip..." Disarm directly compares skill at arms (opposed attack roles). Sunder also (opposed attack roles, or attack vs object's AC). Grapple also (opposed grapple checks). But why should trip be based on your skill at arms? Being tripped doesn't have much to do with how competent you're at swinging that pointy metal stick around, after all. And if you look at the rules for trip, the defender already uses either Str or Dex, whatever is more beneficial to him. And please, please, by the love of the gods, don't get me started on using saves/checks with different key abilities. //---------------// In fact, I'd like to see Attribute checks dumped altogether in favor of a Save associated with each attribute. Since attribute checks are already a type of saving throw, it would actually reduce the number of different save types in the game. It'd be interesting, for example, for Ench-Charm spells to require a Wis save, Ench-Compulsion to require a Cha save, and Illusions to have an Int save. OM*G!! Please no!!!! //---------------// First: 1d4-1 squares - this is mainly a hold over from the way I've handled it in previous editions. The fact that Disarm can't knock your weapon further away I also see as a mark against it. I also allow a character to pick up an item in a square within his reach, so one square away isn't a big deal. Having the weapon knocked further away can also allow the character a chance to retreat to pick it up, or prevent the opponent from retrieving it himself (which is would be easy enough - the now unarmed character doesn't threaten, so no AoO for picking up an item.) If my weapon get's knocked away 2 squares from me, I'd most likely provoke an AoO for leaving a square threatened by my opponent, and depending on exact positioning, I very well might draw a second AoO for picking my weapon back up. And the gods forbid my enemy was a spiked chain wielding enlarged half-orc fighter with Combat Reflexes and Improved Trip. *shudder* //---------------// Second: As I've said before, if I think a result on the table in going to be too harsh on the character for the particular situation, I'll modify or ignore it. I might declare the weapon has landed in a precarious position the character has to save it from, or has fallen in his space, or simply re-roll/ignore the result. I know there are DM's who would take extreme pleasure in getting to screw a player this way, but I'm not that guy. Have you never fudged a die roll in favor of the PC's, even under the core rules? In my opinion having the weapon drop in the character's square should suffice. After all, he could very well have just lost his full-attack and provoking one AoO for picking it up already is insult added to injury, in my opinion. //---------------// Because I have strickly defined boundaries of meanness :angel: :rofl: Ok. //---------------// Nope. For the "Injure Self" result, I leave it open to interpretation as to the cause of the injury, because in a violent combat, there's plenty of other ways to hurt yourself other than hitting yourself with your own weapon. That's why it's a generic d6 damage, instead of the weapon's die. Ok, I see. Was just asking to be sure about that. //---------------// 'Cuz it's just a glancing blow. And I'm still not that mean. You're pickin' on me because my mishaps aren't as extreme as the other fumble charts you hate? :P Oh no, sorry... I wasn't "pickin' on you". I just find it always a little bewildering when I see a "you can hit, but you cannot crit" kind of rule. Nothing personal, really. //---------------// Yeah, I know. This isn't an actual Sunder action, more a reflection that armor should occasionally be damaged in combat, IMHO. A mending spell or craft check will fix it right up, though. But why allow it at all? What do you tell your players if they ask if they can learn that as a feat? Perhaps training to make an opponent's armor useless for him? You tell them "no, because the rules don't allow it"? What if they confront you then with your "fumble" table, which clearly does allow it? That is the kind of confusion/discussion such a table adds to the game, which is imho unneeded. I think the players are completely right if they want to have their characters being able to sunder an opponents armor. After all, the opponents can do that to them if they fumble, and the enemy fighter pretty likely won't have to worry about repairing his armor at all. Also, a simple mending is very likely to not suffice, if you go by RAW. ;) //---------------// It is if it's your last arrow ;) Then you're already royally screwed. :D } Greetings, _Ra-Tiel.
Arminel 02-25-06, 05:50 AM	Our DM simply has some fun with a natural 1. Usually there's another d20 rolled to see how bad the screw-up is. If it is bad, roll again, another attack roll. In one case the fighter rolled a 1, 1, 18 and then 10 on a 1d10 for damage. Her sword bounced off the Vampire Spawn's armor and out of her hand... straight through the Gnomish Mage NPC in the group putting him to like -11 hit points. After the battle while the figher was horrified, the wizard walks up and picks the wand and spellbook off the body saying, "It's a waste of good paper and charges if we leave it here!"
Ra-Tiel 02-25-06, 06:48 AM	Hi. @Arminel { Our DM simply has some fun with a natural 1. Usually there's another d20 rolled to see how bad the screw-up is. If it is bad, roll again, another attack roll. In one case the fighter rolled a 1, 1, 18 and then 10 on a 1d10 for damage. Her sword bounced off the Vampire Spawn's armor and out of her hand... straight through the Gnomish Mage NPC in the group putting him to like -11 hit points. After the battle while the figher was horrified, the wizard walks up and picks the wand and spellbook off the body saying, "It's a waste of good paper and charges if we leave it here!" To make it short: :uh-huh: :noway: :banghead: :rant: --> chaotic evil } Greetings, _Ra-Tiel.
nastynate 02-25-06, 08:37 AM	Wow! look at all this crazy stuff. When I run D&D there is no such thing as automatic hits or misses. A roll of one is simply a result of 1 + your bonuses. If after modifiers it would still result in a hit, it does (and it should if you're character has a +35 bonus to hit, and is trying to strike something with AC 10). Likewise if you roll a natural 20, and your attack bonus is +3, netting in a modified result of +23, and the AC of the thing you are fighting is 40...well you had no buisness trying to fight that dragon did you? I have never liked the concept of automatic hits or misses. If you need pure luck to hit something, you shouldn't be fighting it. Encounters like that are well beyond your capabilities, and you should be wise enough to run like heck when you face something that powerful. Meanwhile a 20th level barbarian should never miss a crippled old lady with a walker...never...That's like suggesting Randy Johnson could miss the broad side of a barn with a baseball at 20'. The mere concept of fumbles gives me heartburn. That's a rule that will only hurt your players in the long run. Because the NPCs and monsters will only ever see a single encounter, maybe tow or three if they are a recurring enemy, and then their part in the story is over. PCs roll those attack dice over and over and over...they will fumble more often than any enemy they will ever fight. As the PCs gain levels, and more skill, they gain additional attacks which in turn means they fumble more often. The more often you roll that d20 the more likely it turns up on that terrible number one. So fumbles penalize those with greater skill, more than they penalize simple commoners. <terrible> Fumbles = bad news
Geoste 02-25-06, 09:13 AM	* sigh * Here I go again. This is my critical miss rules. It does NOT nerf fighters for having multiple attacks - just the opposite. Now, this is just the mechanic I use. What happens when a fumble actually happens is up to you (the DM). I have my own system, of course. Combat (Critical Miss): Roll of a Natural 1 means that you automatically miss. All characters (NPCs, monsters, etc) with more than one attack per round can only critically miss ONCE in a round. Whether or not a Critical Miss check succeeds or fails, you will not be subject to another Critical Miss until the current round ends (all other natural 1's that follow are just normal automatic misses). In order to try to negate the critical miss, you get to roll a D20 roll, which is modified by your current attack roll modifiers vs. DC 20. You may retry to negate the fumble as many times as you have attacks/round according to your base BAB (extra attacks such as from Two Weapon Fighting or Flurry of Blows do not apply). For instance, a level 6 Fighter has two attacks per round, and has two chances to negate a critical hit. If this roll is successful then the Critical Miss is prevented - it is now a normal miss. I find that this critical fumble check barely takes any time at all to make since the current attack bonus is still fresh in the player's mind. My level 8-10 fighter type player characters hardly fumble at all. I also have extra effects for critical hits, such as knockback 5ft (not necessarily prone, scatter direction as DMG). Good for those times when one is fighting along a ledge. :fight!: I also have other critical effect oddities such as adding your BAB as extra multiplied damage for that crit, or even bypassing DR completely. My players understand what is good for them is good for the monsters too.
feartheinvinceblehamster 02-25-06, 11:17 AM	depends on the circumstances: save: auto fail attack: critical fumble, hit self skill or other check: -10.
Ra-Tiel 02-25-06, 11:55 AM	Hi. @featheinvinciblehamster { depends on the circumstances: save: auto fail Ok, just as usual. //---------------// attack: critical fumble, hit self Better not play a Power Attack happy barbarian in your campaign, huh? :rolleyes: //---------------// skill or other check: -10. So you have that strong level 15 elven ranger, a legendary archer amongst his kind, skilled fighter and woodlandsman extraordinaire falling out of every 20th tree he tries to climb? :noway: } Greetings, _Ra-Tiel.
feartheinvinceblehamster 02-25-06, 12:03 PM	Hi. @featheinvinciblehamster { Ok, just as usual. //---------------// Better not play a Power Attack happy barbarian in your campaign, huh? :rolleyes: //---------------// So you have that strong level 15 elven ranger, a legendary archer amongst his kind, skilled fighter and woodlandsman extraordinaire falling out of every 20th tree he tries to climb? :noway: } Greetings, _Ra-Tiel. Not neccasarily. Okay lets say he has 22 STR (16 natural, +2 level, +4 item), 18 ranks in climb, and skill focus(climb) total climb bonus: +25. If he rolls a one, he gets a 15. that's good enough to climb most trees.
Ra-Tiel 02-25-06, 01:04 PM	Hi. @feartheinvinciblehamster { Not neccasarily. Okay lets say he has 22 STR (16 natural, +2 level, +4 item), 18 ranks in climb, and skill focus(climb) total climb bonus: +25. If he rolls a one, he gets a 15. that's good enough to climb most trees. So I have to take an abysmal weak feat and a far too high strength for my preferred style of combat ("... legendary archer... ") to reliably make a check I would have had 0% chance of failure at level 8 by RAW (assuming max ranks and 16 strenght)? } Greetings, _Ra-Tiel.
Viper3220 02-25-06, 01:10 PM	I'm going to go ahead and not read the 3 pages of this thread and dare to post something that's probably been posted already. When someone in our group rolls a 1 we have them "confirm" it like a critical hit and if its confirmed its a normal miss... if its not confirmed then its a miss and they lose the rest of their attacks. (example if they fumbled on their 3rd attack they'd only lose their 4th, not all of their attacks would miss)
Loopy 02-25-06, 01:44 PM	In our game, we treat a "1" as a -10 and a "20" as a 30. It makes little sense for a character who is extremely high level to have a 1 in 20 chance to miss a low-level character with a low AC. Also, it removes the chance for a character who is impossibly low level to have a 1 in 20 chance to hit any other character, no matter their armor class.
Xander Opal 02-26-06, 11:34 AM	How do you guys treat rolling a one in combat? Does the player hurt himself somehow, break his weapon, or just horribly miss? I can't recall a rule that's set in stone for this, and I was wondering how you guys handle it. There is no official rule in the PHB/DMG that I know of, for rolling a 1, other than 'it always misses'. However, I have a house-rule that my players seem to like-- upon rolling a 1, I have them roll a d20. The severity of the miss/fail is determined by the result-- another 1, and the PC is in big trouble, depending on the circumstances. A 20, and it's just a miss. Other factors enter into it, as well-- how the player is doing, how I feel at the time. Still, it's good for heightening the tension at the table, when the PC has to decide whether to duck around the monster to pick up his accidentally-tossed sword, or to draw a lesser alternative weapon. It can also bring the party a little closer together, as they help each other through.
Ra-Tiel 02-26-06, 12:31 PM	Hi. @Loopy { In our game, we treat a "1" as a -10 and a "20" as a 30. It makes little sense for a character who is extremely high level to have a 1 in 20 chance to miss a low-level character with a low AC. Also, it removes the chance for a character who is impossibly low level to have a 1 in 20 chance to hit any other character, no matter their armor class. Assuming you're using this variant only for attacks and saves, kudos to you. :thumbsup: :D } @Xander Opal { There is no official rule in the PHB/DMG that I know of, for rolling a 1, other than 'it always misses'. However, I have a house-rule that my players seem to like-- upon rolling a 1, I have them roll a d20. The severity of the miss/fail is determined by the result-- another 1, and the PC is in big trouble, depending on the circumstances. A 20, and it's just a miss. Other factors enter into it, as well-- how the player is doing, how I feel at the time. Still, it's good for heightening the tension at the table, when the PC has to decide whether to duck around the monster to pick up his accidentally-tossed sword, or to draw a lesser alternative weapon. It can also bring the party a little closer together, as they help each other through. I think I've stated my opinion about such rules already often enough in this thread, so that a single comment should suffice: :banghead: } Greetings, _Ra-Tiel.
feartheinvinceblehamster 02-26-06, 03:48 PM	Hi. @feartheinvinciblehamster { So I have to take an abysmal weak feat and a far too high strength for my preferred style of combat ("... legendary archer... ") to reliably make a check I would have had 0% chance of failure at level 8 by RAW (assuming max ranks and 16 strenght)? } Greetings, _Ra-Tiel. "strong" and "legendary" tends to mean that he is "strong" and "high level"
Loopy 02-26-06, 05:31 PM	Hi. @Loopy { Assuming you're using this variant only for attacks and saves, kudos to you. :thumbsup: :D } Oh, of course. Skills are right out rolls. No fumbles, no critical successes. Sometimes, if a player rolls rediculously well in a heated or dramatic situation, I will give them a bit of a special effect or edge. That's no set rule, really, but merely a device to make things interesting.
Xander Opal 02-26-06, 05:42 PM	Hi. (snip) @Xander Opal { I think I've stated my opinion about such rules already often enough in this thread, so that a single comment should suffice: :banghead: } Greetings, _Ra-Tiel. That's quite all right. My players like it, it doesn't ruin the game, and that's the important part.
Ra-Tiel 02-26-06, 05:42 PM	Hi. === "strong" and "legendary" tends to mean that he is "strong" and "high level" Strength 16 is not strong? What strength do your archers typically possess? In a game with 28 point buy? The money for that belt of giant's strength +4 would have been better invested in gloves of dexterity or bracers of archery, after all. And if you leave away that for an archery-focused ranger absolutely useless feat, your level15-str22-max-ranks ranger still falls out of every 20th ordinary tree he tries to climb in perfect conditions. Not even a climber's kit would help, as it provides only a +2 bonus. === Oh, of course. Skills are right out rolls. No fumbles, no critical successes. Sometimes, if a player rolls rediculously well in a heated or dramatic situation, I will give them a bit of a special effect or edge. That's no set rule, really, but merely a device to make things interesting. :clap: :bow: :cheer: :ayyyy!: :D === Greetings, _Ra-Tiel.
guevaramartyr 02-26-06, 11:39 PM	(I've been away for a few weeks, so I'm gonna start posting again) My reply was not meant to be criticism, but you started up the whole argument again :P So here's my two cents: The argument of critical misses vs. just plain failure on a natural one seems to me to be based around the mindsets of realism and fantasy. Yes, in Lord of the Rings, no one dropped their weapon, broke a weapon, accidentally beheaded a compatriot, etc. The reason for this is that it would have made the movie (and book) decidedly more realistic, which is the opposite thing from what J.R.R. Tolkien wanted. A "realistic" book about elves, halflings, and orcs would probably have been poorly received by his audience (which was actually his children/grandchildren. I forget which, but it's true). I have no problem with the fantasy way of looking at things. From time to time, sometimes all of the time, we want to play the "knight in shining armor" who rescues the princess from the castle by virtue of his wits, without ever dropping his sword. This is perfectly understandable. There are those of us, on the other hand, who like it when there is more realism and random chance in our games. Originally Posted by Ra-Tiel So, your paladin just accidentally beheaded the princess he tried to save from the nasty hobgoblin high-priest? Well, he better finds some cleric for an atonement, because I don't think that his patron deity will care if he slaughtered the young woman accidentally or with intent... Some people like that element of chance that might make it happen, even if you don't. Look - everyone drags out the old "My 20th level fighter drops his sword more than the city guards," gag, but even as your character gets more experience, he is performing that same action more. Here's an example you might be familiar with: Bode Miller anyone? The man has practiced skiing since he was what? Nine? He's on the U.S. Olympic team, and guess what? He still falls down! The trick with critical misses and fumbles is to find the right formula that strikes a balance between failure and success in the right quantities. Just being good at something does not make you impervious to failure, particularly if you do that something much more often.
Grammaticus 02-27-06, 12:33 AM	(I've been away for a few weeks, so I'm gonna start posting again) My reply was not meant to be criticism, but you started up the whole argument again :P So here's my two cents: The argument of critical misses vs. just plain failure on a natural one seems to me to be based around the mindsets of realism and fantasy. Yes, in Lord of the Rings, no one dropped their weapon, broke a weapon, accidentally beheaded a compatriot, etc. The reason for this is that it would have made the movie (and book) decidedly more realistic, which is the opposite thing from what J.R.R. Tolkien wanted. A "realistic" book about elves, halflings, and orcs would probably have been poorly received by his audience (which was actually his children/grandchildren. I forget which, but it's true). I have no problem with the fantasy way of looking at things. From time to time, sometimes all of the time, we want to play the "knight in shining armor" who rescues the princess from the castle by virtue of his wits, without ever dropping his sword. This is perfectly understandable. There are those of us, on the other hand, who like it when there is more realism and random chance in our games. Some people like that element of chance that might make it happen, even if you don't. Look - everyone drags out the old "My 20th level fighter drops his sword more than the city guards," gag, but even as your character gets more experience, he is performing that same action more. Here's an example you might be familiar with: Bode Miller anyone? The man has practiced skiing since he was what? Nine? He's on the U.S. Olympic team, and guess what? He still falls down! The trick with critical misses and fumbles is to find the right formula that strikes a balance between failure and success in the right quantities. Just being good at something does not make you impervious to failure, particularly if you do that something much more often. Comparing a 20th level fighter dropping his weapon to Bodie Miller falling down or an olympic skater taking a dive is not really good, if any fantasy to real life comparison can be. It is more like comparing the dropped weapon to a baseball player dropping his bat while swinging. It just does not happen frequently enough to warrant the chance critical misses generate. Plus everyday batters that take 500 plus swings per season drop their bats less frequently than utility players that take less than 100 swings. Probably because they are better at their craft. I think everyone is looking for a mechanic that seems more reasonable. Plus, if you do critical misses (fumbles) for melee, why don't you do it for spells, rogue abilities, cleric abilities, etc.? Why is it a mechanic that only penalizes fighters and the higher the level the more attacks you get and the greater chance you fumble. Just does not make sense.
Hariman 02-27-06, 01:00 AM	Some people like that element of chance that might make it happen, even if you don't. Look - everyone drags out the old "My 20th level fighter drops his sword more than the city guards," gag, but even as your character gets more experience, he is performing that same action more. Here's an example you might be familiar with: Bode Miller anyone? The man has practiced skiing since he was what? Nine? He's on the U.S. Olympic team, and guess what? He still falls down! The trick with critical misses and fumbles is to find the right formula that strikes a balance between failure and success in the right quantities. Just being good at something does not make you impervious to failure, particularly if you do that something much more often. Oh, you mean falling during the extremely difficult sport of high speed competitive skiing? The DCs are so high for actual competitive skiing that yes, there are times professionals will fall. Circumstance penalties for the high pressure that athletes face during competitions, especially the Olympics, would apply too. Actually, you are right. That is an element that some players will like in their games. But I'll bet they'll still howl when their character dies because of a badly timed one. We all know they pop up. I've actually watched a Water Elemental roll a 1, get the "Hit Self" result and KILL ITSELF. This occurance greatly benefitted the party. Don't ask about the physics for it, I'm just glad it happened. We were fighting on lifeboats in the sea. And we'd just lost one of three lifeboats when it happened. Not everybody will like fumble rules. I, personally, have to find a way to bring this issue to the DM with full knowledge of how often NPC enemies roll a 1. (It's more often than you might think.) I might just send him links to threads like this one.
guevaramartyr 02-27-06, 02:06 AM	Comparing a 20th level fighter dropping his weapon to Bodie Miller falling down or an olympic skater taking a dive is not really good, if any fantasy to real life comparison can be. It is more like comparing the dropped weapon to a baseball player dropping his bat while swinging. It just does not happen frequently enough to warrant the chance critical misses generate. Plus everyday batters that take 500 plus swings per season drop their bats less frequently than utility players that take less than 100 swings. Probably because they are better at their craft. I think everyone is looking for a mechanic that seems more reasonable. Plus, if you do critical misses (fumbles) for melee, why don't you do it for spells, rogue abilities, cleric abilities, etc.? Why is it a mechanic that only penalizes fighters and the higher the level the more attacks you get and the greater chance you fumble. Just does not make sense. Quite the contrary, I'd say it is a good comparison. Olympic skiiers practice for years, just like our hypothetical 20th-level fighter. They both specialize in a practice or sport (e.g. melee combat), they both are under pressure, etc. I think the real problem, as I said earlier, is that some people want fantasy while others want reality, which exist as two diametrically opposed ways of looking at critical misses. The problem I see with the current situation is that: a) While yes, the 20th-level fighter does grow more proficient and adept with his attacks b) random luck still exists and c) he's making more attacks, therefore there are more opportunities for random luck to play a role. Admit it, as much as you hate it when your character breaks his +5 longsword, it is not "unfair" per se. If you flip a coin 10 times, your results will probably be close to 50-50 between heads and tails. If you flip a coin 10,000 times, small elements of chance (air currents, muscle movements) begin to affect the outcomes. It's not a perfect analogy, but it's close. I also do concede that there should be something that affects other abilities and spells, since it doesn't make sense that only combat is subject to chance. That said, I propose that both realism and fantasy-loving gamers alike on this thread work together to devise a system of house rules that will take into account random chance while still reflecting experience that grows with the number of attacks (or actions) you can take. Let's solve this argument once and for all like rational people instead of flaming and having endless discussions. Who's with me?
Ra-Tiel 02-27-06, 04:21 AM	Hi. === [...] Some people like that element of chance that might make it happen, even if you don't. Look - everyone drags out the old "My 20th level fighter drops his sword more than the city guards," gag, but even as your character gets more experience, he is performing that same action more. Here's an example you might be familiar with: Bode Miller anyone? The man has practiced skiing since he was what? Nine? He's on the U.S. Olympic team, and guess what? He still falls down! The trick with critical misses and fumbles is to find the right formula that strikes a balance between failure and success in the right quantities. Just being good at something does not make you impervious to failure, particularly if you do that something much more often. Just as an idea: why not look at this here (it's from that (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20060120a) article on the WotC site)? Tangent Alert!: During the 2004 Olympics, we spent some time applying the D&D rules to various events. Among our findings: Based on height and weight, U.S. gymnast Carly Patterson would be a tall female elf, and her Russian rival Svetlana Khorkina would be a slim female half-elf. The Hamm twins are as tall and as heavy as the average male half-elf. The wrestler Rulon Gardner is in the 69th percentile for half-orc height and weight. And sprinter Maurice Green and soccer star Mia Hamm are very close to the D&D height and weight averages for humans. The best Olympic archers are 7th-level rangers, based on their accuracy against a Fine, stationary target 230 feet away and some reasonable assumptions about feat choices. Weightlifter Shane Hamman? Str 23, based on his snatch weight. A 6th-level monk with a +5 movement speed feat can hit a world record for the marathon, which is 27,687 5-foot squares long. So... the best amongst olympic athletes are level 6 or 7? And you dare compare them to a level 20 fighter? :P === Greetings, _Ra-Tiel.
Neverwrong 02-27-06, 05:01 AM	If you get a 1, roll again, if 1 again, roll two d20's and consult the chart.
Xeviat-DM 02-27-06, 05:33 AM	Like called shot threads, critical fumble threads have the same kinds of opponents; people who are so against the notion of introducing such a mechanic that they focus upon the worst case scenarios and not on the best designed mechanics presented. I'm not naming any names, but some of the opponents who are shooting down people's ideas here aren't even acknowledging what is actually being posted here. As for one poster's comment on that a 10th level fighter shouldn't ever miss an attack against grandma ... If she's not fighting back, it would be safe to say that the fighter isn't under stress; since you can make an automatic hit against a helpless object, and can take 10 on skill checks when not under stress, I think it would be safe to say that grandma killer would get an automatic hit, or at least a 10 on his attack roll, against grandma. If grandma is fighting back, even though grandma's AC is only 8 (due to a degenerate 6 dex score and no armor), there's a small chance she could get her cain up in time and block a particularly bad attack launched by the fighter. Remember, the only randomness in D&D combat (as far as melee hit/miss combat) is the attack roll and damage roll; parrying is considered as part of that attack roll and the base 10 AC; if you roll a 1, maybe your opponent blocked it exceptionally well. As for level 1 commoner scoring a lucky hit against AC 40 dragon; it could happen. Guess what, it's just a critical threat, it will only be double damage if the commoner rolls two 20s in a row (at least that's my interpretation of the critical threat check rules). Having simple critical miss rules, such as loosing your actions or provoking an AoO, really adds to the dynamics of combat in my opinion. Of course, the rules' opponents have the right to their opinions as well, I just think they're wrong. As for critical fumble rules that make people stab themselves, throw their weapon, or hurt their allies, I think that's a little silly. Sure, in the thick of combat, there is a chance one could hit an ally, especially in close combat, but I don't think that should be mimmiced with critical fumbles; at the very least, such a fumble would require another attack roll.
Ra-Tiel 02-27-06, 06:49 AM	Hi. === If you get a 1, roll again, if 1 again, roll two d20's and consult the chart. What chart? :confused: :twitch: :P === Quite the contrary, I'd say it is a good comparison. Olympic skiiers practice for years, just like our hypothetical 20th-level fighter. They both specialize in a practice or sport (e.g. melee combat), they both are under pressure, etc. As said in my last post, I think you're wrong. :P --- I think the real problem, as I said earlier, is that some people want fantasy while others want reality, which exist as two diametrically opposed ways of looking at critical misses. But DnD != realistic! :rant: If somebody wants to play a "realistic" system, I'd gladly point them to "Rolemaster" or "Hârnmaster". There you have it. But please, for god's sake, leave realism out of DnD. The whole combat system in DnD is an abstraction, an extremely simplified way of making the complex events in a combat managable for DMs and players alike! --- The problem I see with the current situation is that: a) While yes, the 20th-level fighter does grow more proficient and adept with his attacks That's the reason why he gets to make more attacks per level, correct? b) random luck still exists and That's the reason why you make attack rolls. ;) c) he's making more attacks, therefore there are more opportunities for random luck to play a role. And that's the reason you make a seperate attack roll for every attack you can make. :) Also, I think many of the people who have "fumble tables" and what not simple forget to be creative. Do you reallly think that the automatic miss on a natural 1 only happens because you can't aim the pointy end of your sword? Every attack roll you are allowed to make represents the oppotunity to harm your opponent, not a single strike with your weapon. Therefore, if you think about it, you could miss because the weapon shortly slips in your hands or because it becomes stuck for a short moment in the enemy's armor before you can reach a vulnerable spot with it. In my opinion, people need to use their imagination more, and charts and tables less. Especially when dealing with natual 1s and "fumbles". --- Admit it, as much as you hate it when your character breaks his +5 longsword, it is not "unfair" per se. Unfair? Unfair? I'd call it DM-cheating! A single "fumble" that can automatically break a weapon with hardness 20 and 55HPs? Make the sword adamantine and you're looking at hardness 30 and 90HPs! And that would not be unfair? :uh-huh: --- If you flip a coin 10 times, your results will probably be close to 50-50 between heads and tails. So far yes. If you flip a coin 10,000 times, small elements of chance (air currents, muscle movements) begin to affect the outcomes. It's not a perfect analogy, but it's close. But here you are wrong, I think! What you call "small elements of chance" are totally irrelevant, because you simply cannot exactly replicate the exact set of conditions you had with the first/second/third/fourth/... throw. Therefore, subsequent throws are already always subject to those influences. Think about "pick-up" (I think that's what the game is called; you let fall 50 sticks and try to pick one up without moving another one but the one you try to pick up). Even if you could replicate the exact set of conditions a second time, the sticks would still fall differently than in the first game. The outcome will always near 50/50, no matter how hard you try to influence it with such means. Only if you used some kind of magnet or somesuch you could deviate significantly from a 50/50 result. --- I also do concede that there should be something that affects other abilities and spells, since it doesn't make sense that only combat is subject to chance. Which would break the game even more. A fighter can just go on swinging his sword (assuming he and his weapon survive the "fumble" at all), while a wizard simple cannot just cast that scorching ray again (only if he had prepared it more often). DnD is not a realistic system, but one that is relatively easy to understand and quick to play. If you add more and more and more such additional rules and tables and charts and I don't want to know what else, you just keep cluttering up the game's mechanics. --- That said, I propose that both realism and fantasy-loving gamers alike on this thread work together to devise a system of house rules that will take into account random chance while still reflecting experience that grows with the number of attacks (or actions) you can take. Why should I? As already said (now the what, 3rd or 4th time?) in my opinion there already are enough possible means to get what you want with your "fumble" rules. A little more liberal interpretation of the automatic miss on a natural 1 should pretty much satisfy all your storytelling needs, without completely screwing over the melee characters. --- Let's solve this argument once and for all like rational people instead of flaming and having endless discussions. Who's with me? Easy solution: do not use "fumbles"! :P And second: not until Hell freezes over! ;) === Like called shot threads, critical fumble threads have the same kinds of opponents; Because "called shots" open up a completely other can of worms of abuse ("I aim for his head!" *roll* -- *sigh*... one dead level 23 wizard...), I agree with you here. --- people who are so against the notion of introducing such a mechanic that they focus upon the worst case scenarios and not on the best designed mechanics presented. Because, the PCs are much more likely to experience the worst case than any other character in the game. And so far, I haven't seen a single "fumble" rule presented in here that had not done at least one of the following things: presented the chance of completely screwing a PC, allowed things to happen that under RAW are simply not allowed, opened up the possibility for horrible abuse, messed with game mechanics pretty badly, or presented a serious disadvantage for some PCs (such as paladins). --- I'm not naming any names, but some of the opponents who are shooting down people's ideas here aren't even acknowledging what is actually being posted here. You can really call me on that one, I'm not upset about that. I love having serious discussions about a "hot" topic. :) Again, I think that there are already rules and mechanics in the d20 system present to handle that "fumbles". The automatic miss on a natural 1, or the variant rule in the DMG, page 28. Anything that goes beyond that is imho too much. Especially tables are - imo - a very bad form of handling this, as it reduces the amount of thought put behind the result of the "fumble" on the DMs part. You can of course make a short list of possible results, but then in game decide based on the situation what happens, and not on a die roll. --- As for one poster's comment on that a 10th level fighter shouldn't ever miss an attack against grandma ... If she's not fighting back, it would be safe to say that the fighter isn't under stress; since you can make an automatic hit against a helpless object, and can take 10 on skill checks when not under stress, I think it would be safe to say that grandma killer would get an automatic hit, or at least a 10 on his attack roll, against grandma. I know what you mean, but that poster had a point, in my opinion. Some results are so rediculously, that it's hard to put them in words. --- If grandma is fighting back, even though grandma's AC is only 8 (due to a degenerate 6 dex score and no armor), there's a small chance she could get her cain up in time and block a particularly bad attack launched by the fighter. Remember, the only randomness in D&D combat (as far as melee hit/miss combat) is the attack roll and damage roll; parrying is considered as part of that attack roll and the base 10 AC; if you roll a 1, maybe your opponent blocked it exceptionally well. Here it is also obvious what you mean, but seriously: I'd rather think of the miss being on the part of the attacker, and not on the part of the grandma. How would a 60+ year old woman parry/block/dodge a greataxe swung by a strong young man? --- As for level 1 commoner scoring a lucky hit against AC 40 dragon; it could happen. Guess what, it's just a critical threat, it will only be double damage if the commoner rolls two 20s in a row (at least that's my interpretation of the critical threat check rules). Assuming of course, the commoner makes it into melee range at all. *cough24d10cough* :D And your interpretation is correct. A natural 20 is just an automatic hit and threat, to confirm the critical hit a second roll is still necessary. --- Having simple critical miss rules, such as loosing your actions or provoking an AoO, really adds to the dynamics of combat in my opinion. Of course, the rules' opponents have the right to their opinions as well, I just think they're wrong. See my comments above regarding that. Loosing your actions simply punishes the characters too much (twf ranger, or twf monk with flurry, anyone?). Also, you'd have to create two sets of charts (one for characters/NPCs and one for monsters that don't use weapons) which would result in even more work and distraction during the game. Also, automatically provoking an AoO could break the game both ways. One way, as being too harsh on characters that rely on many attacks per round, and the other way: Karmic Strike. --- As for critical fumble rules that make people stab themselves, throw their weapon, or hurt their allies, I think that's a little silly. Sure, in the thick of combat, there is a chance one could hit an ally, especially in close combat, but I don't think that should be mimmiced with critical fumbles; at the very least, such a fumble would require another attack roll. Agreed. As said, DnD should still be heroic fantasy. Also, in a game using such rules (baring the chance nearing 0 that I'd ever join such a game ;)) I'd never let anybody play a Power Attack happy barbarian. Because a single attack gone wrong could very well result in a TPK. === Greetings, _Ra-Tiel.
Xeviat-DM 03-03-06, 05:34 AM	Ra-Teil, your reference to called shots points out exactly what I was refering to: I feel that some of the opponents of "hot topics" don't listen entirely to the proponents. For example (without derailing the thread too much ...), my called shot rules: A called shot is a special melee attack action that takes the place of a melee attack (such as sunder, disarm, or trip). You provoke an attack of opportunity unless you have the improved called shot feat; if this attack of opportunity is successfull, you fail your attempt. You cannot make a ranged called shot unless you have the ranged called shot feat (which requires point blank shot and precise shot, and can only be done within 30 feet). You may choose the following "limbs" to target with a called shot: head, hands, feet, legs, arms, ears, or eyes. Each limb has a size modifier to its AC: arms and legs have +4; head, hands, and feat have +8; eyes and ears have +12. If your attack roll is successful, your opponent must make a successful Fortitude save (DC 10 + 1/5 of the damage dealt by the attack); if their fortitude save is successful, they take damage normally; if their fortitude save is a failure, they take normal damage and also suffer a -2 penalty to certain skills, checks, saves, or rolls (to see which rolls are related to each limb, consult the damage to specific areas chart in the DMG). This penalty goes away if the character receives a DC 15 heal check, recovers all of the damage dealt by the attack naturally, or recieves one point of magical healing. I used this for a short time, and it worked nicely. Characters would only use it when they felt they needed the little edge against an opponent. I don't use it anymore since I now use the Wound/Vitality system (which I feel represents injuries in a more abstract and easy to run way than my called shot system), but it did work well for the time I did use it. And my critical miss rules have worked well too. Because you have to check against the opponent's AC, they happen less than one would expect with the "more attacks, more critical misses" philosophy. In fact, I'm running a level 15 game right now and critical fumbles are much more rare than critical hits. The one arguement I do understand is that most players would much rather have their dice rolls determine their success, not their failure. Another thing you said in your previous post that made me think was that skills and spell casting would need to have a similar rule, or it would be unfairly penalizing warriors. I've recently been playing a game where spell casters need to make a check (caster level + ability score) to even get a spell off (though there are only the equivalent of saving throws on a few spells); if you fail, nothing happens. If a critical miss or fumble rule was added to such a system, a critical success or hit system would need to be added as well. I'm not sure where to go on such a system, but the mechanics could be made. Again, you are right in that D&D is meant to be a relatively simple system, but as the d20 system has shown us, some amount of complexity does enhance the game. The wound/vitality system has found a spot in many DMs and Players hearts recently, for example. Besides, without experimentation, there will be no more growth in the game we love so much. Sure, we all say we fear a 4th edition, but if it comes in 10 years down the road and it is made up of elements we encouraged to grow, the game will be all the better (they change the engine for video games every so often, or the style of a car after all ...).
Ra-Tiel 03-03-06, 08:11 PM	Hi. === Ra-Teil, your reference to called shots points out exactly what I was refering to: I feel that some of the opponents of "hot topics" don't listen entirely to the proponents. Well, I just must admit that a hit-location mechanic takes the HP system ad absurdum. Assuming that 90% of the systems and mechanics floating around aren't completely thought out, it is very likely that a wizard survives a hit in the chest dealing 30 points of damage, thus chewing through - let's say - 75% of his HPs, while the fighter dies from a 10 points of damage wound to the head, which at the same level represents less than 10% of his total HPs. It is possible situations like that that give me headaches and made me a strong opponent of called shots in DnD (or for that matter, any d20 system game). Also, an Earthdawn campaign went terribly wrong when the DM tested a variant rule that allowed PCs to make "called shots". The penalties were laughable for the circle (=roughly equivalent for level; possible circles are 1-15 with 10+ already being considered "epic") we were (both my warrior and the swordmaster were circle 7), and so every combat basically became a "I stab at his head" game. It was too easy, and too powerful. :gah: --- For example (without derailing the thread too much ...), my called shot rules: [snip] You know, you almost made me jump here. ;) But I agree, your hit-location system is very rational, but a bit unwieldy and clunky. But otherwise, not broken at all. Congratulations for sticking with the penalties presented in the DMG. :clap: --- I used this for a short time, and it worked nicely. Characters would only use it when they felt they needed the little edge against an opponent. I don't use it anymore since I now use the Wound/Vitality system (which I feel represents injuries in a more abstract and easy to run way than my called shot system), but it did work well for the time I did use it. But VP/WP is not suited for every game style. A single lucky shot by an orc archer could completely screw over your level 20 fighter. It's ok for "realistic" games, where the characters are in danger of suffering real damage in combat. Also, certain settings are highly compatible with the system (Wheel of Time, anyone?). But having your highlevel paladin die from a single attack from the balor isn't exactly the thing many consider "heroic". After all, the heroes are supposed to win, aren't they? --- And my critical miss rules have worked well too. Because you have to check against the opponent's AC, they happen less than one would expect with the "more attacks, more critical misses" philosophy. In fact, I'm running a level 15 game right now and critical fumbles are much more rare than critical hits. But I hope you avoided a situation like with the v3.0 "Hitting the cover instead of the target" rules, where the rogue had a 20% higher chance of hitting his fighter buddy when the enemy sorcerer had mage armor running, than if he did not. :uh-huh: --- The one arguement I do understand is that most players would much rather have their dice rolls determine their success, not their failure. Another thing you said in your previous post that made me think was that skills and spell casting would need to have a similar rule, or it would be unfairly penalizing warriors. I've recently been playing a game where spell casters need to make a check (caster level + ability score) to even get a spell off (though there are only the equivalent of saving throws on a few spells); if you fail, nothing happens. If a critical miss or fumble rule was added to such a system, a critical success or hit system would need to be added as well. Sorry, but... WHAT??? :confused: If I understand you correctly, the caster has to make that check, then check against SR, and finally had to overcome any energy resistances. Hmmm.... I don't know what I should think of this. To bring up Earthdawn again: that system has some really scary spells. For a very good example of what a highcircle ritual spell could be like, let's look at Call forth the army of decay. That's a circle 15 nethermancer (some kind of necromancer, spirittalker and ghostmanipulator) ritual that animates every corpse in an - IIRC - 15 miles radius and puts them under your control. :eek: Just as an example. In Earthdawn spells usually allow no save. A little of the damage might come off because of a character's mystical armor, but basically you're screwed the moment casting is complete. But on the other hand, each spell requires a certain number of "threads" woven into it, and at most with an extreme success a caster can weave 2 threads per round. So, the caster is basically playing "sitting duck" for several rounds while he tries to complete the threads needed for his spells. This gives the PCs usually enough time to prepare against the spell or even disrupt it's casting. So you see, making the caster having to roll to get a spell off should be very carefully considered. Otherwise, you're again toying around with balance/mechanics with unpredictable consequences. --- I'm not sure where to go on such a system, but the mechanics could be made. Again, you are right in that D&D is meant to be a relatively simple system, but as the d20 system has shown us, some amount of complexity does enhance the game. The wound/vitality system has found a spot in many DMs and Players hearts recently, for example. But VP/WP has a serious flaw: ranged touch spells. Spells like scorching ray can be already overpowering at level 3, not to talk of higher levels. And a single critical hit with a disintegrate will most likely end the battle, no matter if the save was successful or not. Against a noncoldimmune opponent, polar ray could be devestating. I seriously cannot see a caster under the VP/WP system not take Improved Critical: Ray the moment he qualifies for it. The gain is so much more intense than under the normal HP system, that it's hard to not take the feat. There are far too many ranged touch spells in DnD nowadays than VP/WP could possibly handle. And if you want to reduce the lethalness of the game, you again have to mess around with the spells in question. Even if you dropped the damage to 1 point per die on a citical hit with a spell, things like Orb of Acid are still combat-enders. --- Besides, without experimentation, there will be no more growth in the game we love so much. Sure, we all say we fear a 4th edition, but if it comes in 10 years down the road and it is made up of elements we encouraged to grow, the game will be all the better (they change the engine for video games every so often, or the style of a car after all ...). When did I say I fear 4e? In fact, I do hope for it, as it represents my only hope in the world to see a nonbroken spellcasting system and psionics declared as core. Also, to warrant 4e, WotC would basically be oblieged to make 4e as different from 3e, as 3e was from 2e. And that makes me really wonder what they could possibly think of. Perhaps we're going to see some kind of "spellweaving" like it was done with the Wheel of Time rpg. Or we will see some kind of class-less DnD, where XPs are used to buy abilities directly. Who knows, who knows... ;) === Greetings, _Ra-Tiel. ~~~ Edit in red
Ysera_the_destroyer 03-07-06, 08:52 PM	My take on rolling ones is that you should get a -5 on the check. If you roll a 20, you get a +5 on the check. I mean its got to have some benefit or minus but a first level character cant complete an epic task by rolling a natural 20 and a epic fighter maxed out on jump cant not jump a 5ft gap just by rolling a one.
lostone 03-08-06, 08:56 AM	My take on rolling ones is that you should get a -5 on the check. If you roll a 20, you get a +5 on the check. I mean its got to have some benefit or minus but a first level character cant complete an epic task by rolling a natural 20 and a epic fighter maxed out on jump cant not jump a 5ft gap just by rolling a one.Sure they can, call it dumb luck, or destiny or fate. The epic fighter trips over a rock, or a random piece of debris from a nearby landslide hits him in the knee at the wrong time, and falls straight down that 5ft wide gap. The first level fighter gets lucky when he foolishly attempts to jump that 40ft gap he has no chance of jumping, when a shockwave from a distant explosion hits him at the same time the wind changes in his favor and causes a strong updraft to come up from the gap, etc, etc. It's a long shot but it happens, we accept things like that all the time in movies. A bumpkin from a desert planet shooting a torpedo down a hole the same size while flying at high speed in a fighter ship he's never flown before without targeting systems to blow up a superweapon space station. Everyone accepted it in Star Wars, why is D&D so different?
Ra-Tiel 03-08-06, 09:48 AM	Hi. === Sure they can, call it dumb luck, or destiny or fate. The epic fighter trips over a rock, or a random piece of debris from a nearby landslide hits him in the knee at the wrong time, and falls straight down that 5ft wide gap. The first level fighter gets lucky when he foolishly attempts to jump that 40ft gap he has no chance of jumping, when a shockwave from a distant explosion hits him at the same time the wind changes in his favor and causes a strong updraft to come up from the gap, etc, etc. It's a long shot but it happens, we accept things like that all the time in movies. Usually I refrain from using a bigger font size, but please let me repeat something: Skill checks do not follow the rules for automatic failure or success! :rolleyes: --- A bumpkin from a desert planet shooting a torpedo down a hole the same size while flying at high speed in a fighter ship he's never flown before without targeting systems to blow up a superweapon space station. Everyone accepted it in Star Wars, why is D&D so different? Because StarWars != DnD, perhaps (even if they use the same basic mechanics)? :confused: === Greetings, _Ra-Tiel.
lostone 03-08-06, 11:15 AM	Usually I refrain from using a bigger font sizeOh really?Sorry, but seeing all those "critical fumble" rules... GAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!! :gah: :OMG!I'll take your word for it... Skill checks do not follow the rules for automatic failure or success!I've been participating in this thread longer than you, I am well aware of the rule that people have been quoting all over. However, this is a thread that is discussing house rules for criticals. You shouldn't get so arrogantly superior in a thread where the first page is almost completely people posting and discussing their house rules in a forum covering a book full of optional rules. As I said in previously (post 4 of this thread) my group uses the +/- 20 option where if you roll a critical success or failure you add or subtract 20 and reroll the die. We apply it to skills (I didn't say that in my post, but we do). We find it to be more fun when things can be wildly successful or go horribly wrong. Calm down, relax, take a deep breath, and repeat after me "I will not overreact, I will be more respectful of my fellow posters".
Ra-Tiel 03-08-06, 12:29 PM	Hi. === Oh really?I'll take your word for it... Just in case you don't know... "usually" (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=usually) :rolleyes: --- I've been participating in this thread longer than you, I am well aware of the rule that people have been quoting all over. However, this is a thread that is discussing house rules for criticals. Oh, now we're using the "I've been here before you so I am right" argument? --- You shouldn't get so arrogantly superior in a thread where the first page is almost completely people posting and discussing their house rules in a forum covering a book full of optional rules. Wrong. The thread's very first post is asking for how various people are handling natural 1s in their games. So this is more related to a poll than "posting and discussing" house rules. Also, I'd like to add that apparently besides me very few can see the caveat of using "house rules" like this, namely that it in one way or another screws the PCs again and either makes invested skillpoints useless or more attacks per round undesirable. --- As I said in previously (post 4 of this thread) my group uses the +/- 20 option where if you roll a critical success or failure you add or subtract 20 and reroll the die. We apply it to skills (I didn't say that in my post, but we do). We find it to be more fun when things can be wildly successful or go horribly wrong. Which is indeed presented in the ELHb on page 110 as the variant rule "Open-ended rolls". But coincidentally, this rule only applies to saves and attacks, because skills, well, are not subject to natural 1s and 20s. Additionally, now you have epic level rangers falling out of trees. :rolleyes: Also, could you please elaborate what you mean by "wildly successfull"? Last time I checked my PHb, there wasn't any additional benefit when you succeeded by 5, 10 or even more on a skill check. Therefore, succeeding by 100 on a certain check (attack roll, save, skill check) is much less beneficial than failing by 1 on the same check hurts the character. --- Calm down, relax, take a deep breath, and repeat after me "I will not overreact, I will be more respectful of my fellow posters". Think about what you have just said, and then repeat "I will stop baiting other posters and telling them what to do." :noway: === Greetings, _Ra-Tiel.
lostone 03-08-06, 01:01 PM	Oh, now we're using the "I've been here before you so I am right" argument?No, I was demonstrating that I had been here when previous posters had repeatedly pointed out that criticals do not apply to skills under the RAW. They did so without being rude and obnoxious with huge fonts. Wrong. The thread's very first post is asking for how various people are handling natural 1s in their games. So this is more related to a poll than "posting and discussing" house rules.If everyone did it exactly the same way there would have been no reason for the OP to post. Therefore by posting they probably expected people to post and discuss their house rules on the subject. Otherwise there is no reason to post except for rules clarifications, which would be in a different forum, not the Unearthed Arcana forum. Also, I'd like to add that apparently besides me very few can see the caveat of using "house rules" like this, namely that it in one way or another screws the PCs again and either makes invested skillpoints useless or more attacks per round undesirable.Like I said, my group finds it enjoyable. You play the game your way, we'll play it ours. It's a game, if something makes it more fun for those involved, why do you care? Which is indeed presented in the ELHb on page 110 as the variant rule "Open-ended rolls". But coincidentally, this rule only applies to saves and attacks, because skills, well, are not subject to natural 1s and 20s.And we changed that. It doesn't affect you, again, why do you care? Additionally, now you have epic level rangers falling out of trees. :rolleyes:Only if they placed their skill ranks poorly or roll poorly. In which case we reflect that it isn't a lack of skill but bad luck (such as a branch not supporting your weight when combined with the stress of a sudden gust of wind twisting the tree). It makes for humorous situations and memorable moments (especially if this happens within view of an enemy). If the good guys never have problems, it's never any fun. Also, could you please elaborate what you mean by "wildly successfull"?Wildly successful is when they succeed where they should have failed. Where the +20 bonus from rolling a critical success allows them to bypass a DC they had no chance of beating otherwise to try something outrageous and risky in a desperate situation.
Eidalac 03-08-06, 01:19 PM	My thoughts on this thread so far: Yeash. None of you should really be taking any of this so... personaly. Anyway. I myself am partial to the +/-20 for any check that rolls a 20/1, in general. It's simple, affects all characters (still, combat types make more checks in most games, so they will always be affected more than most other character types). Plus, I'l admit I'm not fond of the fact that, regardless, a high level fighter who makes more attacks in a round will just wind up hitting 1's and 20's more often than a 1st level, just due to the numbe of rolls. Still, the +/- 20 means that a high level fighter isn't nesicaraly screwed if he rolls a 1, and a single miss isn't all that horrific (ussualy...). If I wanted to make a nat 1 hurt anymore than that, I would probably limit it only to happening once in a given round to a given character, to keep the high level combatants from getting hosed by the 5%/attack chance. That being said, I'm currently liking the Bell Curve Rolling system (3d6 rather than d20). Hitting a 3 or 18 (1 or 20) is reduced to about 0.46% chance per roll, and mixed with a tweaked Wound Point system and some Critical Hit modifications, crits are both rare and devistating (standing a very good chance of killing things with a low to medium con in 1 hit, and even better chance of incapacitating them if not). Still, I'm pondering if I would want to make a critical miss equaly nasty (high drama) or leave it a bit tamer (more heroic fantasy). Currently I just have them provoke an AoO from the target. Since I can't think of a good way to have such a rule affect anyone other than melee combatants, I'll probably leave it at that though.
Ra-Tiel 03-08-06, 02:17 PM	Hi. === Like I said, my group finds it enjoyable. You play the game your way, we'll play it ours. It's a game, if something makes it more fun for those involved, why do you care? Because I simply cannot imagine that to be enjoyable. Skills are pretty much all or nothing. Either you succeed on the climb check and escape the adamantine golem, or you don't and get smashed to pulp. Either you succeed on the jump check and cross the gap, or you don't and fall into the lava pit, dying a painful fiery death. Therefore, anything that messes around with skills is imho a very bad idea, even more considering that critical failures and successes just don't make sense with things like Knowledge skills or Diplomacy, because either you make the DC (and succeed at the task), or you don't (and thus fail the task). You just cannot "critically remember" something... Additionally, many skills already have penalties for "critically" failing them. Just look at Climb or Balance. --- And we changed that. It doesn't affect you, again, why do you care? But why? Does it really make the game more enjoyable for you if the epic rogue breaks his lockpicks on every 20th lock he tries to open? Or the epic bard gravely insults every 20th person he tries to be nice to? Or the epic cleric can't remember the writings of his faith in every 20th ceremony he holds? --- Only if they placed their skill ranks poorly or roll poorly. In which case we reflect that it isn't a lack of skill but bad luck (such as a branch not supporting your weight when combined with the stress of a sudden gust of wind twisting the tree). One doesn't always have the chance to max out "secondary" skills such as Climb. For a ranger Knowledge(nature), Survival and Spot/Listen are much more important than Climb. But if 15 ranks and a strength score of 20 aren't enough to reliably climb a simple tree with a single move action, then something's wrong in my opinion. --- It makes for humorous situations and memorable moments (especially if this happens within view of an enemy). If the good guys never have problems, it's never any fun. So? Perhaps it's a matter of personal preference, but I prefer more of a serious game, and not have the heroes fumble around in front of the king or loosing their grip on their weapons time and again despite bordering on epic levels. --- Wildly successful is when they succeed where they should have failed. Where the +20 bonus from rolling a critical success allows them to bypass a DC they had no chance of beating otherwise to try something outrageous and risky in a desperate situation. Sorry, but a check where you need more than a 20 on the die should automatically mean failure. The "+20/-20" rule is in place to prevent situations like a level 80 barbarian missing every 20th AC 9 goblin or that "Morningstar +2 melee (1d6)"-goblin hitting that AC 241 monk with every 20th strike. === Greetings, _Ra-Tiel.
lostone 03-08-06, 02:30 PM	So? Perhaps it's a matter of personal preference, but I prefer more of a serious game, and not have the heroes fumble around in front of the king or loosing their grip on their weapons time and again despite bordering on epic levels.There you go, it's a matter of personal preference. It's obvious we're not going to change each others minds. I suggest we stop clogging up this thread.
hawaiianbrian 03-12-06, 09:04 AM	I've been using the "roll-again" method for a long time now, both for critical hits and critical fumbles. When you roll a natural 20 on a skill in which you have at least one rank or in combat, you roll again and add the result. For example, you roll a 20, then a 13, so you add 33 to whatever you're trying to do, like swing your sword or pick a lock. If you roll another 20, add it and keep going. That may sound nutty to some of you, but it almost never happens, and I like the cinematic/epic quality it lends to the game. So. In order to get a "critical success," you have to beat the DC by 20 points. That's it. So, if your DC to pick this lock is 25, and you have an Open Lock total of 10, and you rolled a 20 + 6, you succeeded. Roll a 20 +16 and you have a critical success (because your total beats the DC by 20 or more). Now for critical failures: If you roll a 1, you must roll again and read the results negatively, once more rerolling on natural 20s, indefinitely. Subract the result from your skill or combat number. If the total is less than the DC - 20, you critically failed. The benefits of a system like this are that, the higher level the character gets, the less and less likely they will critically fumble trying to fight a goblin, as per the example above. By the way, if a commoner is trying to stick his pitchfork in a dragon, and misses the AC by 20, that's NOT a critical fumble, just a miss -- fumbles only occur on a roll of natural 1. The interpretation of a critical is left up to the DM, of course, going for what seems most likely at the time or what would be the most dramatic occurence. At the very least, the character is placed at -1 next round. And for the person who hates fumbles, who doesn't think its very heroic, and regaled us with the LotR examples, I could point out plenty of other moments in action films -- even those! -- where someone misses and buries their sword in a tree, or has their sword knocked spinning from their hand, whose arrow or bullet ricochets unpredictably away from the target, etc. Watch an action sequence from Indiana Jones! Lots of unexpected effects there. The characters may be heroes, but they're not *perfect*. At least not until Epic.
Ra-Tiel 03-12-06, 09:31 AM	Hi. === [...] And for the person who hates fumbles, who doesn't think its very heroic, and regaled us with the LotR examples, :blink: So, nowadays giving examples in a discussion to support one's own point is no longer appreciated? :weep: --- I could point out plenty of other moments in action films -- even those! -- where someone misses and buries their sword in a tree, --> Automatic Miss. --- or has their sword knocked spinning from their hand, --> Disarm combat maneuver. --- whose arrow or bullet ricochets unpredictably away from the target, etc. -->Miss/Automatic Miss. Because in how many films richocheted the bullet back towards the hero or into an innocent bystander? --- Watch an action sequence from Indiana Jones! Lots of unexpected effects there. The characters may be heroes, but they're not *perfect*. At least not until Epic. As I had already pointed out, all such rules break down exactly at epic levels, where every fumble/critical miss/screw up becomes even more ridiculous. You have rogues that can balance on clouds, barbarians that can swim up waterfalls, druids who can tame and perfectly train a dragon in less than 6 seconds, rangers than can track their prey through the air, clerics turning every undead to dust that has less than (cleric level - 20) HDs, wizards who simply look at a potion and know what it is, bards who make a whole city their fanatical followers with a single song, and so on and so forth. And still those characters once in a while accidentally hit themselves or each other in combat? Break their lockpicks on DC 30 locks? Throw their own weapons away when swinging at an fire giant? :noway: As I've also mentioned in one of my earlier posts, most things people try to get when introducing "fumbles" into their games can already be handled by a not-so-strict interpretation of the automatic miss on a natural 1 and a few imaginative descriptions. Like the sword getting stuck in a tree, or such. === Greetings, _Ra-Tiel.
Viper3220 03-13-06, 03:50 PM	Ra-Tiel I completely agree.
tiejaz 03-16-06, 04:27 PM	Well, I haven't read all the above posts, but I use a system from Torn Asunder, a 3rd party book. I know one of the authors in person, he works at the gaming store I game at, and it's a really good book. it goes like this: Dex Check DC 15 if you fail... well, check out the book
Oneiros 03-16-06, 06:43 PM	Bueno. As mentioned above, I think the main reason we're still arguing back and forth on this one is that I think you haven't mentioned how you treat a natural 1 on that second roll. And if my memory serves me right, your webpage doesn't state that either.A natural 1 on the mishap confirmation roll has the same effect as a natural 20 on a critical confirmation roll in the core rules: none. It's a perfect symmetry :D I could point out plenty of other moments in action films -- even those! -- where someone misses and buries their sword in a tree--> Automatic Miss. or has their sword knocked spinning from their hand,--> Disarm combat maneuver.You offered a similar responses to my list of "this kind of crazy stuff happens in adventure films all the time!" Oh, wait, here it is: "where a savage blow can send a warrior's weapon flying" --> disarm combat action. "a blade may tear into his chainmail" --> normal critical hit. "a slippery slope in a rainstorm can cause him to lose his footing momentarily" --> conditions as described under the Balance skill and Hill Terrain. In my opinion most of the things people try to achieve with "fumble" rules can already be achieved with the normal rules (but I admit that it sometimes requires a little tweaking).Yes, some of these results can be achieved with the normal rules, but what mishaps are trying to reflect is that these kinds of things sometimes just happen, due to the chaotic nature of combat. --> A sword can be knocked from your grasp without the opponent intentionally trying to do so --> One might slip sloping terrain even when being careful and only moving 1/2 --> the "tore chainmail" example is something I simulate with the "Sunder Armor" result on my mishap table, and isn't related to damage from a crit (though I have seen some interesting rules to tie armor damage and crits together.) --> Sword stuck in tree - this goes beyond just an "auto miss", and is again a classic cinematic scene where the hero has to pull his weapon loose after getting it stuck (I've seen this ruled as a STR check) Not trying to convince you of the neccessity of the Mishap rule or that these rules are somehow "better" (think we know your stance on that ;) ), just that, for people who do want such results in combat, the current rules don't always cover it. One other thing - I still don't buy the "these things happen more to players than NPCs" rationale. In any single encounter, the NPCs have just as much chance to screw up. In the next encounter, those NPCs have the same chance to screw up. Does it matter if they're the same or different NPCs? Do the players say "Darn. Now that I've killed the demon-knight, he'll never fumble as much as me"? Adding a fumble rule affects the PC's opponents, which is to say the DM, just as much as them.
SuperTKO 03-30-06, 04:57 AM	Depends on the Situation. On a Skill Check, it depends if the players agree to "Issue 27" before the game. Issue 27 is where if they role a natural 1 on a check, they fail automatically. Not in the worst way possible, especially if they could normally make the DC, but it can be pretty risky sometimes. On the upside, if they get a natural 20, they get a +1 to that certain check permanently (it cannot exceed thier maximum level though. A level 1 character can only get up to 1 'bonus rank', at level 20, a +20 max.) It works out pretty well. If they agree not to use Issue 27, then I usually just give them a -2 circumstance penalty. (Since they rolled a 1, It's really just thier skill -1) In combat, a 1 is a Miss, they confirm, and have to at least hit the person's touch AC, if they succeed, it's just a bad miss, if they fail, then I usually choose something apprpropriate to the situation. They may or may not get all thier attacks. If it's a spellcaster, I also include it. For things that require a to hit, it works just the same as a melee attack. If it's a save-type spell, they have to make an "Arcane Spell Failure Chance" using a d20. (Since all arcane spell failure is in the 5% increment anyway). Even if they don't have armor, or can wear armor with no penalty, they still make the roll. If it's a natural 1, (that 5% chance), then they get a caster level check (DC 15+Spell level). If they succeed, then the spell goes off, (unless they incur an armor check penalty) if they fail they lose the spell. If they fail horribly (natural 1 on caster level), then the spell goes haywire, and use the chart on 150 on the DMG. (which might not always be a bad thing, but it does have quite random, maybe devistating effects.) If it's a wand, it's pretty much the same thing, except a charge is used and a Use Magic Device or Caster level is used instead.
Ra-Tiel 03-30-06, 06:45 AM	Hi. === Just a last few comments, as this thread is already almost dead... --- --> A sword can be knocked from your grasp without the opponent intentionally trying to do so --> One might slip sloping terrain even when being careful and only moving 1/2 You know, in these situations I as a player would feel cheated. Not only because I can be disarmed in a way not clarified by the combat rules (eg the opponent does not draw an AoO), but more importantly because I have to suffer bad consequences despite succeeding on a skill check specifically made to avoid those consequences. When I move more slowly and make my balance check, then I *******it expect that my character does not fall! It's the same as a character falling off a cliff despite succeeding on his climb check, or failing to jump over a small river despite having succeeded on his jump check. --- One other thing - I still don't buy the "these things happen more to players than NPCs" rationale. In any single encounter, the NPCs have just as much chance to screw up. In the next encounter, those NPCs have the same chance to screw up. Does it matter if they're the same or different NPCs? Do the players say "Darn. Now that I've killed the demon-knight, he'll never fumble as much as me"? Adding a fumble rule affects the PC's opponents, which is to say the DM, just as much as them. Unless you use exactly the same NPCs again and again, there is not possible way of the PCs not suffering less critical failures as some NPCs. Just compare the average stage time of an average (or even mastermind) NPC with that of a typical player character. The PC is "online" for the whole campaign, while most NPCs last only for very few encounters. Therefore, the PC's chance to fumble critically during the campaign is drastically higher than the NPC's chance. === Greetings, _Ra-Tiel.
Darien_CR 03-30-06, 08:54 AM	For the groups I DM, I rule that: A 20 is a 30. A 1 is a -10. This means that when a player rolls a natural 1, it is actually a -10 to the roll. No other harmful effects except failure (and at high levels not even that).
Oneiros 03-30-06, 11:03 AM	You know, in these situations I as a player would feel cheated. Not only because I can be disarmed in a way not clarified by the combat rules (eg the opponent does not draw an AoO)The possiblity of becoming disarmed this way is covered by the combat rules... the fumble house rules created by the DM. As long as the players are aware and agree of the change in the rules, and NPCs face the same risk, then they shouldn't feel cheated. If you feel cheated by anything not covered by the core rules, well, that's a complaint against house rules in general, which is definitely a matter of taste. The Disarm fumble result also reflects cases where, by bad luck, one might lose their weapon in combat for reasons other than a purposeful disarm attempt by the attacker. Hence, no AoO. It's a difference between literally being disarmed and the Disarm combat manuever. Regular Disarms, because of the AoO, are way too underutilized in the core game, anyway, IMHO. but more importantly because I have to suffer bad consequences despite succeeding on a skill check specifically made to avoid those consequences. When I move more slowly and make my balance check, then I *******it expect that my character does not fall! It's the same as a character falling off a cliff despite succeeding on his climb check, or failing to jump over a small river despite having succeeded on his jump check.Not the same thing at all. The character makes the check during his movement, and if successful, avoids the penalties/obstacles which affect movement. Fumbles occur when attacks are going on, after movement. Just because I moved slowly up to the giant, I'm magically super-stable when he starts swinging his Huge great-axe at me? In addition, there are core rules which reflect the fact that just because you made a successful skill check to move doesn't guarantee your safety during combat: Being Attacked while Balancing: You are considered flat-footed while balancing, since you can’t move to avoid a blow, and thus you lose your Dexterity bonus to AC (if any). If you have 5 or more ranks in Balance, you aren’t considered flat-footed while balancing. If you take damage while balancing, you must make another Balance check against the same DC to remain standing.Also, you're overstating the consequences I have for the fumble result, as well as misconstuing flavor for mechanic. I never have characters actually fall, just lose a bit of movement or receive an AC penalty because they're off-balance. I then offered up a cinematic situation which the DM could use to describe the result ("a slippery slope in a rainstorm can cause him to lose his footing momentarily"), not suggesting the result is caused by the difficult terrain mechanic. The potential fumble, like a critical, has nothing to do with this mechanic, but the DM is free to incorporate the existing environment to give a more flavorful description of the fumble, just as I might describe an NPC hesitating to check his footing on the slope as the reason the PC split his skull open on a critical hit. Mechanically, the terrain had nothing to do with the critical. Unless you use exactly the same NPCs again and again, there is no possible way of the PCs not suffering less critical failures as some NPCs. Just compare the average stage time of an average (or even mastermind) NPC with that of a typical player character. The PC is "online" for the whole campaign, while most NPCs last only for very few encounters. Therefore, the PC's chance to fumble critically during the campaign is drastically higher than the NPC's chance.Higher than any particular NPC's chance, over the course of the campaign, yes. But that's also true of the NPCs failing saves, or taking damage. But who cares? Read my previous post again. I understand the argument of "less stage time" for NPCs, and think it's a load of crap with regard to "balance" and "fairness" to the PCs. For the encounter where NPC A fights the PCs, he has the same risk as the PCs to fumble. For the next encounter, NPC B also runs the same risk. From a game mechanical point of view, it doesn't matter that they are not the same characters. The opponents, taken as a whole, have the same chance to fumble each encounter, and therefore over the course of the campaign, as the PCs. In my experience, the DM will actually suffer more fumbles on his rolls, because he's often controlling more numerous (and sometimes less skiled) characters than the PCs.
StormKnight 03-30-06, 01:15 PM	Attack: automatically misses. That's it. Occasional humorous or hindering results may occur is combatants are rolling a lot of '1's in short succession. Save: automatically fails. Skill: If a '1' would have succeeded normally, I probably didn't bother having the player roll anyway.
guevaramartyr 03-30-06, 11:15 PM	Bravo Oneiros. Although any NPC taken individually will suffer less critical failures over a game or campaign, DM-run characters will suffer more over the course of the entire game. They are generally less skilled and more numerous. Finally, someone points it out intelligently!
rhammill 04-28-06, 10:35 PM	1 - automatically misses or fails. In combat, they are flat-footed until their turn in the next round, and it provokes an attack of opportunity from their opponent (even if they have used their AoO). But, I use the 3d6 variant, so it's actually a natural roll of 3 which is very rare (less than 1/2% if I recall, instead of 5% and an equal chance of every other number). Randy
Kursk 04-29-06, 09:21 PM	How do you guys treat rolling a one in combat? Does the player hurt himself somehow, break his weapon, or just horribly miss? I can't recall a rule that's set in stone for this, and I was wondering how you guys handle it. Roll a 1 on atack, roll again, if you miss then crit fumble. See Arduin fumble tables for an idea.
Hariman 04-30-06, 03:07 AM	Bravo Oneiros. Although any NPC taken individually will suffer less critical failures over a game or campaign, DM-run characters will suffer more over the course of the entire game. They are generally less skilled and more numerous. Finally, someone points it out intelligently! As good an argument as it was, it doesn't include one major factor: Emotional attachment to your character. I don't know about you, but I spent a decent amount of time creating a good backstory for my character. I also took the time to connect him with priior characters. And I've done this for both of the characters I am playing in campaigns right now. (Even the cohort for one got a decent backstory.) Because I like the character(s). Because I've spent enough time on the character to want to see that character to success. Because, even if I am playing for fun, it's like the old lego ships that I wouldn't let my brother take apart, even though I would rebuuild them at least once a week. They're something a player creates with the expectation of having their life or death decided by more than just a critical fumble/deathcrit rule. Because D&D IS unrealistic, so you don't expect something "realistic" like a triple crit rule to kill your character. You expect it to be rolled damage, from an attack. (Barring an assassin's death attack.) I actually fear the critical/critical fumble house rules that I deal with. Because, no matter how unlikely they are, NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES THEY HELP THE PARTY BY INJURING AN ENEMY, it'll still **** me off if my character dies because the dice showed 20 too many times. Y'know, I have to admit I could have said all of this in a much smaller post. Maybe something like: "Your argument does not take into account that players often develop an emotional attachment to their characters, whether they realise it or not. NPCs and BBEGs might make a critical rule funny, but a player character death makes a critical rule frustrating, saddening, and aggravating. There is only enough time to make a good encounter put into NPCs. There is a hearty investment of hours put into making a character. This means that the emotional impact of losing a character to a critical fumble rule is much greater than a normal kill, because the critical fumble rule bypasses the normal rules that govern life and death in D&D. And I know damn well that I'd rather have my character die from an attack than a triple crit or a fumbled attack." Herman PS: The critical rules that I deal with are: 1: If a critical threat is confirmed with a natural 20, a third attack roll is made. If the third attack roll hits (as a normal attack) the target of the attack dies. (From the DMG p28.) 2: On a natural 1 on an attack roll, roll a d4 for your fumble. 1: Hit Self, 2: Hit Friend, 3: Break (Mundane) or damage (Magical) repeated "breaks" with a magical weapon will eventually break it. 4: Drop Weapon Break and Drop do not apply to natural weapons or magical attacks. Self and Friend do. I play a Warlock with these rules. How the F*CK can a guy with magic bound to his soul let it hit himself?
Ra-Tiel 04-30-06, 03:49 AM	Hi. === As good an argument as it was, it doesn't include one major factor: Emotional attachment to your character. [...] :clap: Couldn't have said it better myself. --- [...] PS: The critical rules that I deal with are: 1: If a critical threat is confirmed with a natural 20, a third attack roll is made. If the third attack roll hits (as a normal attack) the target of the attack dies. (From the DMG p28.) 2: On a natural 1 on an attack roll, roll a d4 for your fumble. 1: Hit Self, 2: Hit Friend, 3: Break (Mundane) or damage (Magical) repeated "breaks" with a magical weapon will eventually break it. 4: Drop Weapon Break and Drop do not apply to natural weapons or magical attacks. Self and Friend do. I play a Warlock with these rules. How the F*CK can a guy with magic bound to his soul let it hit himself? :gah: ... I feel your pain. :weep: Just a question... adamantine weapons do count as "mundane" on that 1d4 table if not enhanced? :thinks: === Greetings, _Ra-Tiel.
Tanivor 04-30-06, 11:59 AM	If you rule that a natural 1 is worse than just a miss, you penalize players who make a lot of attack rolls (i.e. high level fighters) and have little or no effect on characters who rely on spells. Isn't that imbalance bad enough already? To solve this, rule the following: High-level fighters can only have a critical failure on their first attack. Spellcasters have their own problems. Second, have the player confirm the failure before a fumble occurs (1 time in 400 they really screw up... That sounds possible). If you really think that sounds implausible for higher level, say that at level n, they must roll a third 1 to fumble (1 time in 8000) and then I think you're good.
Darkuwa 04-30-06, 04:44 PM	1=-10. If your bonuses still make you get greater than 0 then nothing bad happens. If its in the negatives you drop your weapon or something, but never EVER hit another character or break your weapon, that way leads unhappiness. Same kind of thing with skill checks.
Hariman 05-01-06, 12:46 AM	Just a question... adamantine weapons do count as "mundane" on that 1d4 table if not enhanced? :thinks: [/sblock] === Greetings, _Ra-Tiel. I think mundane translates to "non-magical". The critical rules are the only big sticking point for the DM in question. Other than the odd critical rules, he's a good DM. H
karsushalafer 05-01-06, 11:52 AM	A natural 1 means -10 and a natural 20 means 30. When you confirm a critical miss you fall fatigated, or falls prone.
bitnine 05-01-06, 02:26 PM	1=-10. If your bonuses still make you get greater than 0 then nothing bad happens. If its in the negatives you drop your weapon or something, but never EVER hit another character or break your weapon, that way leads unhappiness.This does still leave cases where iterative attacks become a liability. A level 10 ranger with a +3 sword and 16 strength has a 0% chance of getting a critical failure; and when he gains a level, his increased skill gives him a 5% chance to critically fail instead.
Oneiros 05-01-06, 03:09 PM	As good an argument as it was, it doesn't include one major factor: Emotional attachment to your character. [...] There is only enough time to make a good encounter put into NPCs. There is a hearty investment of hours put into making a character. This means that the emotional impact of losing a character to a critical fumble rule is much greater than a normal kill, because the critical fumble rule bypasses the normal rules that govern life and death in D&D. And I know damn well that I'd rather have my character die from an attack than a triple crit or a fumbled attack.As good as an argument as it is, you've set up something of a strawman. I have yet to see a character die in my game from a fumble, and I don't anticipate that I ever will. That's most likely true of almost all the other fumble rules presented here. Emotional attachment has no bearing on the rule. I have, however, seen more than PC die from a massive critical hit, or even just a normal power attack. I'm actually in agreement with you on this point, and have even taken pro-active steps in my campaign to lessen the lethality of such damage rolls. I'm surprised that Ra-Tiel applauded you for this, since he has stated that such "by the rules" randomness is a perfectly acceptable means of character death, where as I would agree that due to the idea of emotional attachment to PCs, the current crit rules are a bit too much. My own mishap rules, however, aren't going to result in your buddy accidently slicing off your head. You won't lose your sword you've invested 64,000gp in or die from a self-inflicted injury. Also, as I've stated before, it's entirely within the DM's pervue to ignore any results which might too harshly punish a character or are simply not applicable to the situation. Perhaps I've struck a balance in my own game by decreasing the chance of 72 points of damage against a PC with 30 hit points left with the increase of random events during combat in the form of mishaps.
bitnine 05-01-06, 05:06 PM	As good as an argument as it is, you've set up something of a strawman. I have yet to see a character die in my game from a fumble, and I don't anticipate that I ever will. That's most likely true of almost all the other fumble rules presented here. Emotional attachment has no bearing on the rule.That aside, harsh fumbles aren't too nice for players as a general rule. The follow certainly doesn't apply to your fumble system, but it's interesting as a tought excersize: Let's say that there's a 0.0005% chance that a character blows up from making an attack roll. (That might approximate using a critical fumble chart on a natural 1, with only percentage dice equalling 00 having said impact; or maybe rolling two natural 1s in a row then failing some sort of check with a 20% failure rate.) Who is this more relevent to? Any of the miscellaneous opponents that show up and make a dozen attack rolls and are probably going to die anyways? Or someone in the group of 4 players who make a few dozen rolls every session? Chances are that by around 1380 attack rolls net by the party, you'll see a player asplode. (NPCs being on a similar clock.) And when you think about it, if both a random NPC and a random player nuke themselves every 20-30 sessions or so, chances are that the player explosion will be far more impactful. For one thing, selecting a player at random will always choose a nontrivial entity, whereas the likelihood of the same in selecting an NPC at random is low. The other thing is that an opponent's death by its nature tends to be more trivial than player death. It also negatively impacts players that make large amount of attack rolls, like a flurrying monk, or hasted rapid shot archer. Get someone who pushes around 50 attack rolls a session, and you've got around a 2.5% chance to die from your own dice every night.
Hariman 05-02-06, 02:06 AM	As good as an argument as it is, you've set up something of a strawman. I have yet to see a character die in my game from a fumble, and I don't anticipate that I ever will. That's most likely true of almost all the other fumble rules presented here. Emotional attachment has no bearing on the rule. I have, however, seen more than PC die from a massive critical hit, or even just a normal power attack. I'm actually in agreement with you on this point, and have even taken pro-active steps in my campaign to lessen the lethality of such damage rolls. I'm surprised that Ra-Tiel applauded you for this, since he has stated that such "by the rules" randomness is a perfectly acceptable means of character death, where as I would agree that due to the idea of emotional attachment to PCs, the current crit rules are a bit too much. My own mishap rules, however, aren't going to result in your buddy accidently slicing off your head. You won't lose your sword you've invested 64,000gp in or die from a self-inflicted injury. Also, as I've stated before, it's entirely within the DM's pervue to ignore any results which might too harshly punish a character or are simply not applicable to the situation. Perhaps I've struck a balance in my own game by decreasing the chance of 72 points of damage against a PC with 30 hit points left with the increase of random events during combat in the form of mishaps. Sounds like you're slanting things in the opposite direction. Lending less weight to criticals and more to mishaps that are relatively harmless. (Or at least less final.) But emotional attachment does have a bearing on the fumble/critical rules. I know that sounds like a "because I say so" response, but it's not. It'll still be a shock to lose the character to triple 20s or a natural 1 from a friend. Just bear in mind, my statements are applied to house rules for critical hits and misses. They do not apply to normal critical hits or power attack. I've seen a character die from power attack and it is a normal part of a D&D session. So is the odd critical hit from a high damage weapon. Hit your friend fumbles and autokill crits are an entirely different matter. Another example of how hitting yourself on a fumble is strange is that I've seen a water elemental hit itself. How does a water elemental hit itself? Shouldn't it just meld the arm back into itself?
Sphyre 05-07-06, 08:27 AM	They just rolled a 1. Nothing more, nothing less. Ditto. Math has shown, critical fumbles make experienced fighters more prone to critical fumbles than a level 1 commoner. For that reason, the fact that you have a base 5% failure is enough of a penalty.